Links to Pages in this 

New Home Page

Old Home Page




Contact Us

Essays. Speeches, and Other Compositions

& Related


Help for



News and Views 

ling in the

Opposing the Pro-

Sex Education--
Issues Regarding

Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society

Take Backo
the Schools


"Life Views"
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Website



Two Young Pro-Life Activists in London, England, July, 2011  (BCPTL photo)

"SPUC [The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children] has launched a campaign called Mayisha, which means "life" in Kiswahili. Mayisha:
  • supports and campaigns for good and ethical maternal healthcare in developing countries
  • challenges the Department for International Development to adopt ethical policies regarding maternal health
  • condemns attempts to hijack maternal health to impose abortion on developing countries rather than deal with the real problems facing mothers."

[from the blog of John Smeaton, SPUC Director]



Table of Contents for this Page:

Perry: Communist China ‘Destined for the Ash Heap of History’ – 35,000 Abortions Every Day There

British Columbia FOI Commissioner Elizabeth Denham agrees with predecessors that no subject should be off limits

Moral dictatorship over abortion debate obscures range of Canadian opinion

Listen to This "Life Matters" special. 

Washington Post: Obama Administration Deliberately Defunded Bishops Group

Niagara ARPA Group Ordered to Take Down Pro-Life Memorial  

Your Insurance May Already Cover 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs'

U.S. lawmakers pass amendment supporting blind pro-life Chinese activist after vicious beatings

Federal Judge Suspends NYC Ordinances Targeting Pregnancy Centers

Pro-Lifers [Cecelia Von Dehn and Don Spratt] Convicted and Fined for Warning Others of Bubble Zone Law

Pennsylvania, Kansas Work to Regulate Abortion Clinics

Two More Philadelphia-Area Abortion Clinics Shuttered Following Inspections

Abortion Funding and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Divide Congress

Pro-life laws work: study

The Abortion Reality - 40 years later, 15-year-old date rape victim relates her gripping story on RoadKill Radio 

‘I stand before you accused of mischief’: Arrested pro-lifer speaks out in court

Gibbons case going to Supreme Court

Kansas Travesty: 249 child-age abortions over 3 years, just four sex abuse reports--Kline Hearings

Doctor Charged in Newborns’ Killings

Toronto pro-lifer arrested, reporter’s camera seized

Bill for Roxanne's Law Defeated

Abortion coercion law debated in Parliament - vote on Wednesday

UN Partners With NGOs to Push Abortion in Africa

No end in sight to Gibbons court odyssey

Vote on Canada’s abortion coercion bill bumped up to Dec. 15th

Britain Needs Informed Consent Laws to Lower Abortion Rates: Pro-Abortion MP

First Debate on Canada’s "Roxanne's Law" (Bill Against Coercive Abortion) Set for Monday [November 1, 2010]

Day 34 of 40 Days for Life: 445 saved … One Week Left!

Few Canadians know rules on abortion, poll finds

Case illustrates legal, ethical minefield of surrogate births

U.S. Pro-Life Student Group Defends Arrested Canadian Pro-Life 'Heroes'

Gibbons Trial, Pickets Outside, Packed Courtroom

The Truth Comes Out - Canadians Want Restrictions on Abortion

Woman Jailed for Abortion Counseling in Toronto Acquitted, Set Free

UVic anti-abortion group gets funding back

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

Harper Credited for Keeping Abortion Out of G8 Maternal Health Plan

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

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

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

How motherhood stopped being a motherhood issue

British Columbia March for Life 2010

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

Calgary U Finds Pro-Life Students Guilty over Display

      Black hole    

The truth about abortion polling

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

Press Release and Open Letter to Hedy Fry

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

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

BC Hospitals Refuse to Release Abortion Data

   BC Abortion Hospitals Seek to De-Rail FOI Inquiry  (press release)

MP launches effort to protect women from forced abortions

Pro-life Students Face Possible Expulsion from Calgary University

Seattle Mom: School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me

Conservative MP Criticizes Ignatieff’s Abortion Advocacy as “Cynical Politics”

Liberal motion defeated; no clarity on abortion

Liberals to push Harper on G8 abortion

Pro-Aborts at University of BC Censor Pro-Life Display

Should This Woman Abort? YOU Decide

Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial hits YouTube -- Watch it below

PM's women's health initiative must include abortion: Ignatieff

Planned propaganda

Abortion clinics may take charge [in Washington State]

Hundreds of Thousands Join 37th March for Life [in Washington, D.C.]

and  Thousands March for Life in Washington, D.C.

National Cancer Institute Researcher Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in Study

Secretary Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

What scientists don't tell you about abortion

Planned Parenthood Doubles "Abortion Services" From 2007 to 2008 to Over 1 Million

[U.S.] Senate Votes to Keep Abortion in Federal Programs

Young Pro-life Europeans Demonstrate for Life at Strasbourg Court

When abortion isn't a choice

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

Crown Stays Charges Against Campus Pro-Life Advocates . . .

University of Victoria Abortion Debate Overflows Capacity 

Woman 'addicted to abortion' releases memoir

White House Noncommittal on Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Public Memorial Service for Slain Pro-Life Hero to be Held at Football Stadium Wednesday

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?

Killing Girls is Bad, Killing Boys is OK

Back to School: Abortion Pop Quiz

Petition to Stop Funding Planned Parenthood

Pro-Lifers Released from Jail

Vancouver Police Arrest Sissy Von Dehn: Informing the Public Regarding the Bubble Zone Law

Vancouver Police Arrest Two at Abortion Clinic

EU tiptoes round Lisbon quicksands  [Ireland assured sovereignty over its anti-abortion policy]

12-Year-Old Pro-Life Prodigy Gives Moving Speech at Canadian March for Life

Pro-Abortion Language Blocked at UN Status of Women Meeting

University of Calgary Students Plead "Not Guilty" to Charges of Trespassing on Their Own Campus

Abortion debate draws large crowd  [at the University of Ottawa]

University pro-life group stripped of club status by student union

Angry Abortion Supporters Shut Down Debate

Obama Revokes Abortion Funding Policy, Will Fund Overseas Abortions with Taxpayer Money

Vatican attacks US abortion move

Contrary to Mainstream Media, Hundreds of Thousands at Giant Washington March For Life

Poll Shows 92 Percent of Canadians Unaware that Law Permits Abortion up to Birth

Gibbons freed from custody after judge quashes charge

People are worth even more than kidneys

"Why I Am Pro-Life"

Pro-Life Speech Under Siege on Canadian Campuses

Cardinal Archbishop of Montréal: "I Am Returning my Order of Canada Insignia"

"Canadian Doctors' Group Worried Palin Example Could Pressure Some Women to Not Abort Down's Child"

Canadian Pro-life Hero Linda Gibbons' Trial Commences

Lutherans denounce Morgentaler recognition July 2, 2008

  A statement on awarding the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler from Rev. Dr. Ralph Mayan, president of Lutheran
July 2, 2008

Formal Request Filed to Terminate Henry Morgentaler’s Appointment to the Order of Canada

Morgentaler to be Held Up as an Inspiration to Young People by Virtue of His Being Made a Member of the Order of Canada  

Abortion Numbers in England and Wales Break Records Again

Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion Over Wishes of Individual States a Priority for Presidency

Gender Doesn't Trump Humanity

William Wilberforce's Great Grandson Says if Alive Today Wilberforce Would Fight Abortion

Students Defy University Censorship And Plead For Peaceful Freedom Of Expression

[U.S.] Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Abortion Isn't Found in the Constitution

The Day Humanity Became Cheap

Abortion:  Have We Gone Too Far?  (news release from LifeCanada)

Michael Coren: Ignoring the most important right of all

Mother Demands Justice against Abortionist for Letting Daughter Die As He Was Killing Her Child

Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore

British Columbia Government Rejects Mandated Parental Permission for Minors’ Health Care

Pro-Lifer Violently Assaulted Outside Abortion Clinic, Police Take Time After Repeat 911 Calls  

Non-Canadian Abortion Advocate Recruited to Face Young Pro-Life Leader

Empathy key in abortion issue

"Abolish Abortion in Canada" is the Top Canadian Wish, CBC Announces

"I tried twice to abort my baby - but I'm delighted I failed"

BCPTL Request for a Meeting with Government Ministers on Parental Consent for Minors' Health Care Results in Meeting with Attorney-General and Representative of Ministry of Health June 21, 2007

Presentation "On the Necessity for Mandated Parental Permission for Minors’ Health Care"

Immensely Popular Quebec Folk Song Laments Abortion and the Modern Culture of Sterility

Please thank the Canadian Medical Association  for upholding conscience protection for doctors.

Canadian March for Life Hits New Attendance Level of 7,000 With 75% Youth

President to Reid, Pelosi: Vetoes for Any Pro-Abortion Legislation [in the U.S.]

One-Quarter of UK GPs Refusing to Give Abortion Referrals

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Idaho Parental-Consent Bill Approved in Senate

Samantha Shrugged

Pro-Life Nurse Refuses to Assist in Abortion of Down Syndrome Child

Pro-Abortion University Group Retracts Slander Against Pro-Life Group After Lawsuit Threat

Canadian University Student Association Charged with Slander Against Pro-life Group; Faces Lawsuit

Autopsy Confirms “Aborted” Baby was Born Alive at Abortion Clinic

New Environics Poll Confirms that Canadians Support Legal Protection for Unborn

Constitutionalized Infanticide

UK Doctors Say Women Should be Warned of Clear Link Between Abortion and Depredssion

Message Sent by BC Parents and Teachers for Life to the BC Health Minister
Requesting Mandated Parental Consent for Minors' Health Care

August 4, 2006, Reply from the British Columbia Health Minister to the Above Letter

Response of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life to B.C. Minister of Health's Letter of August 4th

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Petition for Mandated Parental Consent for Youth Health-Care Referrals Presented to Legislature

Revenge of the Aborted

Abortion Mill Fieldtrip

Wife of Chinese Forced Abortion Opponent Hauled in for 9 Hours of Questioning

Quebec Court Forces Province to Pay All Fees at Private Abortion Mills

Professor of Law Prophesies the Universal Imposition of Abortion “Rights” and the Death of National Sovereignty

Bishop, Author of Amnesty International Prayer, to Resign over Abortion Stance

Eugenic Abortion Looms Large in UK as Abortion Pill Use Doubles

CTV's Mike Duffy on abortion debate in Ottawa

Family group launches adoption campaign in Argentina to combat abortion

Amnesty International Considers Pushing Enforcement of Abortion 

Amnesty International UK Branch Approves Abortion Advocacy

Respect for life hard to find here

Conservative Government Soon to Decide on New Brunswick Refusal to Fund Private Abortions

"Evidence Doesn't Matter" -- APA Spokesperson Says of Abortion Complications

Illinois Newspaper Capitulates, Agrees To Run Pro-Life Ads Refused as “Too Graphic

President Bush Touts Abortion Decline, Calls for Human Cloning Ban

Majority of UK Women Want Abortion Restricted by Law

Abortion Pill RU486 Banned in Italy

On Day of Alito Confirmation, Two Courts Rule Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional

U. S. Supreme Court Avoids Major Abortion Ruling

"Mother Seeks Abortion Rule Change" [in the U.K.]

Canadian Abortion Activists Attempt to Repackage Their Image

"The Abortion-Homosexual Connection"

Ireland's Largest University Prevents Abortion Survivor Speaking

Doctors reject call to reduce abortion limit

Ethicists Seek Halt to Harvesting Stem Cells from "Fresh" Embryos

Canadian Government Caught Funding Anti-Christian Bigotry - Minister Won't    Apologize

Abortion Linked to Increased Risk of Child Abuse, Reveals New Study.

Abortion Parental Consent Law Ruled Constitutional and Enforceable

Abortion Free Speech - City and School Must Pay Pro-Life Activists $130K

Christian doctors defend right to refuse abortions

Campaign to Defund Abortion in British Columbia

Law Protects Babies Born Alive after Abortion - Bush Administration Vows to Enforce

California Pro-life Activists Collect 700,000 Signatures for Parental Notification Constitutional Amendment

"Doctors stir revival of Hippocratic Oath"

‘Roe’ Requests Supreme Court Overturn Abortion Law

Lawsuit Filed Against New US Law Barring Discrimination Against Pro-Life Doctors

"NDP Hypocritical in Opposition to Government Use of Private Clinics"  [Unity Party\ news release]

Study Claiming No Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer "Corrupt, Biased and Horrible"

Canadian Pro-Life Free-Speech Case Appealed to International Tribunal

Federal Appeals Court To Revisit Roe v. Wade at Request of Original Plaintiff

"Shameful Bias Again in This Year's March for Life Coverage by Mainstream Media"

President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion 
Act of 2003

"Judge Calls for Protection of the Unborn"  [from drug-abuse effects]

"Canadian Supreme Court Nixes Bubble Zone Appeal" [of Demers case]

"A Christmas wish beyond the pale"  [comment on Henry Margentaler's call for the complete secularization of all hospitals in Canada]

Report on James Kopp's Confession Reminds Us: Using Violence in the Name of Defending Life is a Betrayal of the Pro-Life Cause

Report Given on Canadians' Opinions on Abortion

Website Gives Pro-Life Netherlands Views

BCPTL Petition Seeks Requirement of Parental Consent for Youth Health Care

Abortions Decline Since 'Consent Laws'

Campaign Life Coalition Letter-Writing Campaign

Pro-Abortion Leader Fears Debate?

"Abortions rise  in under-age sex crisis" [in Britain]

"Alarming rise in use of 'morning after' pills by under-16s" [in Britain]

Whistleblowing Nurse Fired

"Hospital cleaning company sues union"  [Company Denied Work Because Part-Owner is a Prominent Pro-Lifer]

"Contract Torn Up, Jobs Lost, Over Abortion Views" [of Cecilia von Dehn]

"Fetal Study Adds Fuel to Late-Term Abortion Debate"

Professor Claims Significant Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer

ACLJ Wins Religious Discrimination Case Over Morning-After Pill

"Abortion Heroes Make History Joining Unprecedented Pro-Life Campaign "

U.K. Pro-Life Activists See Pattern Of Harassment from Advertising Official

Abortion Breast Cancer Ad Victory

"France Rejects 'Right Not to be Born"

"Pro-Lifers Challenge Bejing's Depiction of Its Population Control Policies"

Mainland China's Policy Results in Massive Infanticide

What the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Means for Women in the Developing World

"Abortion Link to Rise in Breast Cancer"

Perry: Communist China ‘Destined for the Ash Heap of History’ – 35,000 Abortions Every Day There

( – Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry (R-Texas) said that China was “destined for the ash heap of history” because of its immoral government, citing the fact that an average of 35,000 abortions are performed there every day.

“I happen to the think that Communist China is destined for the ash heap of history because they are not a country of virtues,” Perry said during his closing comments at the GOP presidential debate on Nov. 22. . . . .

[Click here to read the whole CNS article online.]


British Columbia FOI Commissioner Elizabeth Denham 
agrees with predecessors that no subject should be off limits

[BCPTL passes on this important press release received from John Hof.]



November 29, 2011






Current Information & Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has agreed with her predecessors that no subject should be off limits under British Columbia’s Information & Privacy Act. Denham took it a step further and charged that British Columbia is not meeting international standards.


In a letter dated November 8, 2011, Denham stated:


“I agree with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.  The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.” 


Stated open access advocate Ted Gerk:


“Three BC Information & Privacy Commissioners have agreed that Section 22.1 of our Information & Privacy Act is dated and wrong.  Three.  The topic of abortion was declared off-limits by the former NDP government in 2001, trying to use law to silence their political opponents. Three of our OIP Commissioners have now stated that in a democracy, entire subjects should never be off-limits.  It is now time for the government to act. Do they believe in the ability of the men and women they place to run the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner or not?”


Furthermore, there is ongoing information failure with abortion statistics in British Columbia. For example, we can know that our local hospital is performing abortions, but access to complication or health data is banned. Individual clinics do not report their statistics to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) so there is no accurate health data on even the amount of abortions performed in British Columbia.”


Copies of the letters from Elizabeth Denham, Paul Fraser, QC, and David Loukidelis can be found at:








Moral dictatorship over abortion debate obscures range of Canadian opinion

By Natalie Hudson Sonnen  
If polling is any indication, the issue of abortion in Canada is certainly not over and done with. In a September National Omnibus poll by Environics, the findings put the abortion issue squarely on the map. Seventy-two per cent of a representative sample of 2000 Canadians surveyed support legal protection for unborn babies.

Most (62%) want protection from conception or from two or three months on; another 10% favour protection from six months on; and 20% supported the current policy in Canada of no protection for human life until birth.

Canada is the only country in the Western world with no restrictions on abortion.

The poll also found support for some kind of restrictions on abortion among members of every political party.
It cannot be denied that 68% of Canadians want some form of legal abortion in the first three months of gestation. Yet 58% stated it should be illegal in the second three months, and 77% in the final three months. Women were slightly more in favour of making abortion illegal in the final three months of pregnancy: 81% to 73% of men.

And when it comes to sex-selection abortions, Canadians are thoroughly put off.  A massive 92% of Canadians thought sex-selection abortions should be illegal in Canada.

On the question of who pays, 67% do not favour our current system of tax-funded abortions. Thirteen per cent said abortions should always be paid for by the patient and 54% said abortions should only be tax-funded in emergency situations.

What Canadians actually think about abortion is not represented in our current laws and policies. Clearly, there is no moral consensus on the issue, yet there is a wide-spread ban on discussing it, a kind of moral dictatorship that prohibits even a mention of the word at any level of policy making. . . . .

Clearly the people of Canada favour legislation to restrict abortion, but the dictatorship held by abortion absolutists terrifies most of us into silence, especially our elected representatives. In the pervading absence of discussion, the absence of law remains, and it is women and their unborn children who suffer.

[Read the whole article in the online "Holy Post" of the National Post.]





You Haven’t Missed It!  Watch and Listen to This Special
on RoadKill Radio

"Life Matters" Special - We Demand the Debate


If you did not hear this Internet broadcast, featuring Senator Gerry St. Germain, M.P. Brad Trost, and John Hof of Campaign Life Coalition (B.C.), you 
can still take it in,  because RoadKill Radio has it archived.  Listen here.


A message from Kari Simpson – This LIFE MATTERS special is dedicated to the memory of baby Rodney Effert, who was strangled to death by his mother shortly after his birth – and then on Sept 14, 2011 was abandoned by the Canadian Justice system when the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned Katrina Effert’s murder conviction. Angry Canadians became outraged when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeal.

The time is now for you, as civil and just Canadians, to demand protection for our most vulnerable. It is time to end the taxpayer funded extermination of our children through the brutal act of abortion. It is time to send a clear message to the courts and to our elected officials that LIFE MATTERS.




November 1, 2011 Print

 Washington Post: Obama Administration Deliberately Defunded Bishops Group

by Karla Dial

When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lost a federal contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in October for the work it does with sex trafficking victims, many people suspected it was because the Catholic group will not provide or refer for abortions.

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that speculation as a fact.

Citing HHS sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, The Post reported that the USCCB contract was a matter of much discussion — and strife — within HHS before the agency officially adopted a policy giving “strong preference” to grant applicants that would provide or offer referrals for “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”

“It was so clearly and blatantly trying to come up with a certain outcome. That’s very distasteful to people,” one official told the paper.

Since 2006, the USCCB has received $19 million from the federal government for the work it does providing food, shelter and counseling to sex-trafficking victims. But in 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government for granting the money to the pro-life USCCB, claiming it’s an “unconstitutional” use of taxpayer dollars. That case was heard by a federal judge in Massachusetts on Oct. 18; a decision is pending.

Though HHS officially denies committing any kind of religious discrimination, The Post reports that internal documents reveal an independent review board and career staff members had recommended that USCCB’s contract be renewed, but “senior political appointees” in the department overrode them.

According to the review board, the new recipients of the grant money did not score as well as the USCCB — leading several of the career officials to refuse to sign off on the documents awarding them the grant. . . . 

[Read the whole CitizenLink article online.]

Niagara ARPA Group Ordered to Take Down Pro-Life Memorial

(October 5, 2011 - In a grassroots effort to draw attention to the plight of unborn children, a Niagara ARPA group has been threatened with legal action if they 
do not remove a pro-life memorial which they erected to testify to the deaths of over 100,000 unborn children in Canada each year.

On Saturday, October 1st, several members of the ARPA Niagara group erected a memorial honouring victims of abortion on a vacant parcel of private property in a high-traffic area just Southeast of Industrial Park Road in Smithville, Ontario. The memorial was constructed using straw bales on a flatbed trailer stacked like bleachers and one hundred white crosses were inserted into the bales.  Organizers posted a 48" x 48" sign that read 'Each cross represents 1,000 unborn children aborted every year in Canada,' on one side of the display and a similar 48" x 96" sign featuring a picturing of a healthy unborn child alongside the Bible verse "I praise you Lord because I am fearfully and wonderfully made... You knit me together in my mother's womb... Psalm 139."

On Tuesday October 3rd, the Township of West Lincoln issued an order for the removal of the memorial, citing the memorial violated the township's zoning and sign size regulations.  The township has set an October 10th deadline for the removal of the memorial.  Local officials, including West Lincoln mayor Douglas Joyner noted the removal order was initiated by a local complaint.  Unfortunately, local officials have been unwilling to elaborate on the nature of the complaints or how many complaints were received despite several inquiries by local ARPA chair Ed VanderVegte.  The township's actions seem to be 
motivated by the content of the memorial rather than an actual by-law infraction.

ARPA Niagara Vice-chair Ralph Vis released an official statement, noting: "Roadside crosses and tributes to fallen soldiers are common across Southern Ontario honouring the victims 
of a traffic fatality or tragedy on the battlefield and pointing fellow drivers and citizens to the dignity and value of life.  So why is a memorial that exposes the ongoing violence committed 
against some of the most vulnerable citizens in Canada being selectively targeted by the Township of West Lincoln?  By forcing the removal of ARPA Niagara's abortion memorial, the 
Township of West Lincoln is exposing a biased position on the abortion issue as well as restricting freedom of speech and religious expression."

APRA Canada requests that you pray for the ARPA group, that there may be a good outcome on the matter and that the message of life can continue to be voiced in Ontario and 
throughout Canada.

To voice your concerns about West Lincoln's affront to freedom of speech contact the Mayor or Township.

Mayor Douglas Joyner

Township of West Lincoln: 905-957-3346 or 1-800-350-3876 email

For further inquiries, please contact ARPA Canada's Ontario Director and Legal Counsel André Schutten 613-297-5172 or

United States:

Your Insurance May Already Cover 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs'

Health and Human Services ruled last week that insurance plans must provide contraception with no copayment.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that beginning next year, all insurance plans must provide a wider range of services to women, including coverage for all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved contraceptives. These include drugs that pro-life groups call "abortion-inducing drugs." The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land called the decision "an abomination." However, since 29 states already require contraception coverage, many Americans already belong to insurance prescription plans that cover these medications.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed last year will expand the requirement to the entire country, requiring that all insurance policies provide preventative services. As in the states that already require coverage, preventative services would include all FDA-approved contraceptive methods. The Health and Human Services ruling would go further, however, since insurance companies would be required to provide contraception with no copayment.

The controversy over the ruling mostly revolves around two contraceptives approved by the FDA, ella (ulipristal acetate) and Plan B (levonorgestre). These drugs work by making it unlikely that an embryo will be able to attach to the wall of the uterus.

For pro-life groups, such medications are morally (if not medically) abortifacients, drugs that cause an abortion. They are not abortifacients legally, however. According to medical definitions:

— Pregnancy is a condition of the mother, beginning when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.

— Contraception lowers the chances of pregnancy; it includes medication that blocks fertilization, but also drugs that prohibit a pregnancy after conception.

— Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A drug that works before the embryo attaches to mother is contraception; one that occurs after pregnancy starts is an abortifacient.

Drugs such as ella and Plan B are approved for contraceptive use because they prevent pregnancy. According to the FDA, the drugs are emergency contraceptives that should be taken within five days of "a contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse." They are not intended as routine contraceptives. Women who suspect that they are pregnant are advised to not take the drug.

Richard Land from the SBC dismissed such definitions. The issue, said Land, was the ending of the embryo, not the pregnancy. . . . .

[To read the whole article, go to Christianity Today online.]


U.S. lawmakers pass amendment supporting blind pro-life Chinese activist after vicious beatings

Peter J. Smith Jul 22, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 22, 2011 ( – A committee of U.S. House lawmakers voted Thursday to recognize the plight of a blind pro-life Chinese activist who has been imprisoned and viciously beaten by authorities for exposing a local program of forced abortions and sterilizations.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass U.S. Rep. Chris Smith’s (R-NJ) amendment to the State Department 2012 appropriation bill, supporting Chen Guangcheng and his wife, who have been punished for Chen’s pro-life activities and are currently under house arrest. Chinese officials have gone so far as to lock down the village where Chen is imprisoned in a bid to keep the human rights activist from communicating awith the outside world.
Chen was arrested in 2006 for exposing evidence of government officials performing 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations on women in Linyi County, Shandong Province in a single year.  Time Magazine named him one of “2006’s Top 100 People Who Shape Our World” and he was given the 2007 Magsaysay award, known as Asia’s Nobel Peace Prize.

The House committee vote was praised by human rights activists who have been trying to raise political and public awareness about Chen’s treatment at the hands of China’s communist authorities.

China Aid and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers are advocating for Chen’s freedom, saying the activist’s health is declining from repeated severe beatings and malnutrition while under arrest. The activists cite a letter they say was recently smuggled out of China by Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing, in which she expressed grave concern about Chen’s chances for survival.

“We thank Rep. Chris Smith for his leadership in sponsoring this far-reaching amendment, which urges the Chinese government to stop harassing the Chen family, to release them from house arrest, and to arrange for immediate medical treatment,” said Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. “We thank Rep. Chris Smith for his leadership in sponsoring this far-reaching amendment, which urges the Chinese government to stop harassing the Chen family, to release them from house arrest, and to arrange for immediate medical treatment.”

Smith’s amendment also urges the Obama administration to reach out through its embassy and establish contact with Chen. It also decries China’s program of forced abortion and coercive family planning measures.
“This historic amendment also raises the issue of the harassment, arrest, disappearance and disbarment of Chinese human rights lawyers and defenders,” added Bob Fu, President of China Aid. “We hope to see the Obama administration take effective action on behalf of Chen and other human rights defenders who are suffering incalculable harm as a result of their courage to stand up for human rights in China.”




CitizenLink, July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011 

Federal Judge Suspends NYC Ordinances Targeting Pregnancy Centers

by Catherine Snow

In the “abortion capital” of the nation, a federal judge offered a surprising rebuke against New York City officials on Wednesday for violating the free speech rights of local pregnancy centers.

The city council had approved in March, by a vote of 39-9-1, a requirement for pregnancy resource centers to post signs and tell clients what services are not offered — specifically abortion and contraception. The ordinance also puts the centers at risk of costly legal action.

Judge William Pauley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York also granted the pregnancy centers’ request for a temporary injunction — or suspension — from the ordinance.

The judge wrote that the law’s “over-expansiveness is evident from its very language,” and would “upend established free speech protections.

“While Defendants apparently regard an assembly of people as an economic commodity, this Court does not. Under such a view, flyers for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance, or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely because they assemble listeners for the speaker.”

CeCe Heil, senior council for the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented the centers, called the court’s action a resounding victory and is confident the law will ultimately be struck down. In January, a U.S. District Court in Baltimore struck down a similar law in Maryland.

“This law, which forces crisis pregnancy centers to adopt and express views about abortion and contraception that they strongly disagree with, is constitutionally flawed,” Heil said. “The court clearly understood that this law punishes pro-life advocates.”

The Alliance Defense Fund also sued against the city over the law, as it threatens nonmedical, pro-life centers with steep fines and potential closure if they don’t post signs and publish in their ads that the city health department encourages women to go elsewhere.

The Centers for Disease Control has reported that nearly 41percent of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. Yet, the pregnancy centers are saving lives. Expectant Mother Care Centers, the plaintiff in the case, has served more than 100,000 women since 1985, and helped save over 40,000 pre-born babies.



Pro-Lifers [Cecelia Von Dehn and Don Spratt] Convicted and Fined for Warning Others of Bubble Zone Law


VANCOUVER, June 20, 2011 (RKRNews) — Two prominent pro-life activists were convicted of violating BC’s infamous “bubble zone” law in provincial court today, but will serve no jail time—and their convictions and sentences will be appealed. Don Spratt was fined $1,000 fine and sentenced to two years’ probation; Cissy von Dehn was sentenced to two years’ probation.

Both were arrested June 19, 2009 for standing inside the “bubble zone” outside a building at 2525 Commercial Drive that houses an abortion mill, passing out copies of the Access to Abortion Services Act (the “bubble zone” law) while wearing sandwich-board signs that said “WARNING! YOU CAN BE ARRESTED UNDER BILL 48” and “BE INFORMED. READ BILL 48”.

The previous day, Spratt had learned that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear his appeal of an earlier conviction under the same law, when he had carried a cross made of 2x4s and a small sign reading “you shall not kill” into the bubble zone.

Speaking for both accused, defence counsel Doug Christie said the conviction would be appealed on four grounds:

• The court ruled that the Access to Abortion Services Act is a “strict liability” statute, which means that proving mens rea (intent) is not necessary for a conviction. But Christie (as Mrs. Von Dehn’s counsel) and Ron MacDonald (Mr. Spratt’s counsel) both argued that the Act is not a “strict liability” statute.

“They were convicted because of who they are—prominent pro-life activists,” said Christie. “But it doesn’t matter who does the action, it’s only the action itself that the law addresses.”

• The court erred in not recognizing their “due diligence”—the fact that they had taken steps to determine that what they did—passing our copies of a law exactly as published by the government of BC—was not a crime.

“In no jurisdiction could distributing copies of a law be construed to be a violation of that same law,” said Christie.

• The court erred in defining “officially induced error” too narrowly.

Mrs. von Dehn had been inside the zone carrying identical warning signs on three previous occasions, and police had informed her that her actions were not violations of the Act.

• The court erred in not limiting the meaning of the terms “protest” and “sidewalk interference”.

No evidence was introduced at trial that anyone on the sidewalk had been impeded by the presence of Spratt and von Dehn; nor had they said anything about abortion.

Before sentencing, Spratt made a statement explaining why he felt compelled to oppose abortion in Canada . In 40 years of assisting the oppressed in impoverished nations around the world, he said, he has seen how tyranny develops: first, human rights are crushed when those who cannot defend themselves are oppressed or killed; then, civil rights are also destroyed, as anyone who attempts to defend the helpless is punished.

“The Canadian government, like all tyrants before them, are not only committing human rights violations against the pre-born, but have moved on to deny the civil rights of anyone who dares to speak up or intervene on behalf of the downtrodden. True to the pattern of repressive governments everywhere, our constitutional protections are swept aside, and off to jail we go!” he said.

“To be arrested and jailed, simply for informing the public of the existence of a law that could send them to prison, looks and feels a lot like despotism to me!”

He quoted Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, when he introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960: “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe is wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

Comparing abortion to slavery—both are the abuse of one person’s rights for the benefit of another, according to legal scholar Charles I. Lugosi—Mr. Spratt also quoted US President Abraham Lincoln: “Abraham Lincoln said, ‘You cannot have the right to do what is wrong’, and ‘If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.’ I say, ‘If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong; and we cannot have a right to choose to do wrong’.”

Mr. Spratt’s full 2,300-word statement is to be made available on-line at:



Pennsylvania, Kansas Work to Regulate Abortion Clinics

by Jennifer Mesko on CitizenLink, Apr. 12, 2011

The Pennsylvania House Health Committee has passed legislation that would regulate abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities.

The bill comes in response to Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors,” an abortion clinic that was shut down last year when investigators discovered grotesque conditions and the remains of preborn babies. The clinic’s owner, abortionist Kermit Gosnell, remains jailed on eight murder charges. Prosecutors say he routinely killed babies who survived late-term abortions.

Prior to the raid on Gosnell’s clinic, the state had failed to inspect any abortion clinics for more than 15 years.

“Pennsylvania’s abortion centers have been hiding behind a veil of politically motivated secrecy,” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Council. “No inspections, virtually no follow-up on malpractice and injury allegations against abortionists, and lax rules and regulations that left women endangered. . . . .

[Read more at CitizenLink online.]

Two More Philadelphia-Area Abortion Clinics Shuttered Following Inspections

by Jennifer Mesko, CitizenLink, Mar. 10, 2011

In early November, two Philadelphia-area abortion clinics closed and the abortionist retired after a state inspection revealed nightmarish conditions at the facilities. Then Pennsylvania officials waited more than three months to say anything about the case.

Only after a drug raid in February 2010 revealed horrific conditions at the Philadelphia abortion clinic of Kermit Gosnell did the state Health Department decide to inspect all of the state’s 22 clinics — for the first time in more than 15 years.

In early November, the state discovered disgusting conditions at two separate clinics — including fetal remains in cabinets and outside. Abortionist Soleiman M. Soli, 73, decided to close both of his Abortion as an Alternative Inc. clinics and retire. The reports were provided recently to The Associated Press by the office of Gov. Tom Corbett.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said he wasn’t shocked by the news.

“Are we surprised that inspections at two more Philadelphia-area abortion centers uncovered atrocious, unsanitary conditions? No. We expect more revelations. Are we surprised that ‘pro-choice’ politicians are still trying to protect the abortion industry? No. It’s part and parcel of their practices, and pro-lifers must band together to say ‘No more!’”

Gosnell is charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman and seven babies who were born alive and then killed. Investigators discovered the remains of babies strewn through the clinic.

Just miles away, the scenes were eerily similar.

At Soli’s Bensalem clinic, inspectors found the remains of preborn babies left outside the building in unsecured containers, AP reported. Inspectors say drugs and equipment required to resuscitate patients were missing. And they say dozens of expired drugs were found, some dating back decades. . . . 

[Read the whole article on CitizenLink.]



April 7, 2011 Print


Abortion Funding and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Divide Congress

by Jennifer Mesko

With the government just one day away from shutting down, Congress continues to debate the budget.

Life advocates have been pushing lawmakers to support spending bills only if they contain four key provisions to: defund Planned Parenthood; reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which prevents federal funds from going to international groups that promote or perform abortions; defund the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund; and stop government-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

“A large majority of Americans, regardless of their view on abortion, believe that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion,” said Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action.

Unfortunately, the spending measure that passed in the U.S. House today defunds abortion in D.C., but fails to address the other pro-life priorities.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “ideological matters” are the only problems in reaching a budget solution. . . . .

[Read the whole article on CitizenLink.]




November 29, 2011






Current Information & Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has agreed with her predecessors that no subject should be off limits under British Columbia’s Information & Privacy Act. Denham took it a step further and charged that British Columbia is not meeting international standards.


In a letter dated November 8, 2011, Denham stated:


“I agree with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.  The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.” 


Stated open access advocate Ted Gerk:


“Three BC Information & Privacy Commissioners have agreed that Section 22.1 of our Information & Privacy Act is dated and wrong.  Three.  The topic of abortion was declared off-limits by the former NDP government in 2001, trying to use law to silence their political opponents. Three of our OIP Commissioners have now stated that in a democracy, entire subjects should never be off-limits.  It is now time for the government to act. Do they believe in the ability of the men and women they place to run the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner or not?”


Furthermore, there is ongoing information failure with abortion statistics in British Columbia. For example, we can know that our local hospital is performing abortions, but access to complication or health data is banned. Individual clinics do not report their statistics to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) so there is no accurate health data on even the amount of abortions performed in British Columbia.”


Copies of the letters from Elizabeth Denham, Paul Fraser, QC, and David Loukidelis can be found at:









Pro-life laws work: study

[Readers of the BCPTL website will perhaps be aware that in British Columbia no involvement of parents is legally necessary for teen-agers who have abortions.  Your fourteen-year old daughter (if you have one) can come home having had an abortion as a result of a school-based refererral to an abortion-providing agency, without her parents' consent or counsel or even knowledge, and it is all legal.]

by Kathleen Gilbert

·         Tue Mar 29, 2011


WASHINGTON, March 28, 2011 ( - A new analysis of abortion data across all 50 U.S. states has found solid evidence that legislation intended to reduce abortion, such as parental involvement laws, is effective.

Michael New, Ph.D., an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, recently published the survey entitled “Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era” in State Politics and Policy Quarterly, the top state politics journal in the country. The study evaluated abortion data from nearly every state over a span of 21 years, from 1985 to 2005, a longer period than nearly any other peer-reviewed study. 

New drew from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose data on abortion rates provided what New found was a clear indication that Medicaid abortion funding restrictions, parental involvement laws and informed consent laws effectively lower abortion rates.

Parental involvement laws specifically were found to reduce in-state abortion rates for minors by approximately 15 percent.

The professor notes that his study is part of a substantial body of academic literature showing that such laws are effective, although his latest work aimed to overcome shortcomings of previous studies by analyzing many types of abortion restrictions, as well as examining a broader range of years and states.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the study by New, a former adjunct fellow with the Family Research Council, confirms the conservative group’s support for laws that strengthen families against the tragedy of abortion.

“Almost invariably it is a parent, not a government employee or business entity, who cares most about a daughter’s well-being. This is why we strongly support commonsense laws that reaffirm parents’ unique role as the decision-makers in the life of their child,” said Perkins.

“Politicians can talk about ‘reducing abortion rates,’ but if they truly want to do so they will support parental-involvement legislation and defund such organizations as Planned Parenthood that perform or promotion abortions,” he added.

Click here to read the entire report, click here.


RoadKill Radio Special Release – March 30, 2011


(Due to the volume of response to this show, please be advised that our RKR video production team will release a feature video of Angelina Steenstra’s story in a few days time.  For those who have requested a copy of the show for immediate distribution, be advised that a copy of the archived show is now available and can be heard/downloaded at RoadKill  Mrs. Streenstra is speaking today, details below.)

 The Abortion Reality - 40 years later, 15-year-old date rape victim relates her gripping story on RoadKill Radio

March 29, 2011 (RKR News) — For a full hour Tuesday night, RoadKill Radio listeners were gripped by the powerful personal story of a woman—then only a 15-year-old girl—whose life was forever changed by date rape and its abortion aftermath.

Angelina Steenstra of Whitby, Ontario will tell her story again at the University of BC on Thursday, March 31, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., outside the Student Union Building on the North Plaza; and at Simon Fraser University on Friday, April 1, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the outdoor covered area on the Convocation Mall in the Academic Quadrangle.

Mrs. Steenstra is the featured speaker on the Silent No More Awareness Campaign 2011 BC Tour. Her story can be heard in full on the March 29 archives at

“This is the kind of story RoadKill Radio exists for, telling the truth about the real consequences of abortion and other politically driven agendas that are ignored by the downstream media” said co-host Kari Simpson after the broadcast. “We give a voice to the voiceless. We provide a stage for the truth to be told.”



‘I stand before you accused of mischief’: Arrested pro-lifer speaks out in court

by John-Henry Westen

  • Mon Mar 28, 2011 
Mary Wagner

TORONTO, March 28 ( – After spending 48 days in jail, pro-life activist Mary Wagner stood trial today for offering assistance to distressed pregnant women in the vestibule of a Toronto abortion facility.  Wagner represented herself in court, reading a statement in what one witness called “a little bit of history being made.”

While the crown argued that the abortion facility should have a right to operate their business without interference from Wagner, in her statement of defense Wagner concentrated on the plight of unborn children and their mothers. 

Read the complete statement here.

“I stand before you accused of mischief,” Wagner began. She pointed out that the ‘business’ in question “exists almost exclusively for the purpose of destroying children in their mothers’ wombs; under the guise of serving women, helpless babies are killed there, and their mothers are left wounded.” 

Although the small courtroom was full and included several pro-abortion activists, there was a hush during Wagner’s presentation.

“I have attempted to reach out to women who are considering abortion as a solution to the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves,” she said. “My presence was peaceful, and stems from an acknowledgment of the fact that a new human life exists from the moment of conception.”

At the conclusion of her statement she asked the judge for a moment of silence for the unborn.  The judge denied the request.

The judge then announced that he disregarded Wagner’s statement since he said it did not pertain to the matter at hand.  He found Wagner guilty of mischief and sentenced her to one year of probation with an order not to go near any abortion facility in Toronto.

Wagner was arrested February 9th after peacefully handing out roses to pregnant mothers entering the abortion centre.  On a small card with each rose, Wagner wrote: “You were made to love and to be loved.”

“Your goodness is greater than the difficulties of your situation. Circumstances in life change. A new life, however tiny, brings the promise of unrepeatable joy. There is still hope!”

At least one couple is known to have left the centre that day, rose in hand, smiling thankfully at pro-life witnesses on the sidewalk outside.

Alissa Golob, leader of Campaign Life Coalition Youth, attended the trial with a group of pro-life supporters.  Golob told LifeSiteNews that she and her friends felt it was a privilege to be on hand for the trial.  She described the silence that greeted Wagner’s statement and said that it struck awe in the hearts of the pro-lifers present, encouraging them to continue to strive for the right to life of unborn children.



Gibbons case going to Supreme Court

by Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO, February 22, 2011 ( - Linda Gibbons has spent long years over the past decade and a half in dank prison cells that, as she said recently, sometimes dip below 10C in temperature. But a development out of Ottawa has given her hope that some measure of justice might finally be served.

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that it will hear an appeal filed by her lawyer seeking to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal decision reinstating her criminal conviction on a charge of disobeying a court order.

The charge had originally been quashed by a lower court judge on the grounds that the matter was improperly heard in a criminal, rather than civil, court. The 1994 injunction relating to the charge had been decreed in a civil court, yet the Ontario Attorney-General’s office has, from the beginning, consistently charged her criminally.

Gibbons’s lawyer Daniel Santoro has held that that is an improper way of dealing with the matter and has sought to have the Supreme Court decide the issue once and for all.

With the news that the highest court will indeed hear the case, Santoro and co-counsel Nicholas Rouleau will now be preparing the voluminous briefs needed to argue their side of the case. They will also be getting set to make their debut journey to the nation’s capital for a Supreme Court hearing, likely to take place this fall. Two Crown lawyers will, in turn, represent the opposing position of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General.

Each side will have an hour to present its case, with 10 minutes allotted to intervenors, should any come forward.

Most of the work will have been done beforehand, in the written briefs that could reach up to 40 pages in length. If Gibbons wins the case, she will be acquitted of the charge and there will be important implications for any future prosecution should she breach the terms of the injunction. Most especially, she will no longer be liable to be tried in a criminal court.

In a related pending matter, there will be three days of hearings March 7, 8 and 9 at the College Park courthouse, Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto, regarding an abuse of process motion put forth by Santoro regarding a different charge of disobeying a court order laid against Gibbons. He is arguing that hearings in 2001 regarding the injunction improperly went forward without Gibbons’s consent, as she was legally unrepresented at the time.

Worsening matters has been the fact that the Crown attorney’s office somehow lost a letter advising that Gibbons’s counsel was no longer representing her. Such conduct by the Crown, Santoro has argued, is abusive and a dereliction of duty.



Kansas Travesty: 249 child-age abortions over 3 years, just four sex abuse reports--Kline Hearings

Peter Smith

Thu Feb 24

KOPEKA, Kansas, February 24, 2011 ( – Evidence entered into the Phill Kline ethics trial Wednesday revealed that state agencies had received reports of 249 abortions on children under the age of 15 years old between 2001-2003, but that abortion providers, who are mandatory reporters, had sent in only four reports of child sexual abuse.

Tom Williams, Kline’s chief investigator when he was attorney general (and later district attorney), said that he made the discovery in 2003 during a broader effort meant to tackle underreporting of child sexual abuse in the state.

Williams testified to a sworn affidavit, entered into evidence Tuesday, that abortion records from the Kansas Department of Health and Education (KDHE) showed an aggregate 249 “termination of pregnancy” reports on females under 15 years for 2001, 2002, and into 2003. Abortion providers are required by law to send reports to KDHE with statistical information surrounding the abortion (which does not include specific patient information.)

However, they are also required by law to send in sex abuse reports in such cases to the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS). But records of child sex abuse reports subpoenaed by Kline’s office in 2003 indicated that over the same time-period, only four reports of child sex abuse had been sent to the SRS.

That same sworn affidavit showed 166 abortions occurred on children 14 years old and younger between 2002-2003. Kline had testified to that particular number on Tuesday, saying that Comprehensive Health Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (in Johnson County) and George Tiller had each reported only one instance of child sex abuse.

Williams testified that the massive disparity (in the 2001-2003 period) between the KDHE and SRS records was documented on a spreadsheet, and was one of the reasons that prompted AG Phill Kline to launch an investigation into the apparent failure of abortion clinics to fulfill their duties as mandatory reporters.

Williams explained that the process of data-crunching took time, because SRS gave them 19,042 individual reports of child sex abuse. After thoroughly examining them all, and weeding out the duplicates, Williams testified that they boiled it down to 6,797 reports of child sex abuse in Kansas between 2001-2003.

But Williams also added that he was looking into the SRS reports in order to find a pattern of reporting that could “exculpate” providers.

“And I couldn’t find it,” Williams told Kline attorney Mark Stafford on direct examination. He said he even failed to find evidence that could show employees reporting the suspected child rapes.

He pointed to the example of a 10-year-old from California, who received a late-term abortion from abortionist George Tiller at his Wichita Women’s Heath Care (WHC) clinic in Wichita. Although Tiller reported the late-term abortion to KDHE, no report as mandated by law was filed with SRS. Williams said his assistant Jared Reed could not find anything in SRS reports that looked similar or identical to the KDHE record.

Williams later found out that California authorities had apprehended and prosecuted the perpetrator of the crime, but Tiller had nonetheless failed to fulfill his obligations under state law. He said that he never learned the 10-year-old’s identity, but felt that he had the right situation based on the time period.

He also explained that the 10-year-old, had Tiller reported it, “would have been a checkmark in their favor.”

Williams testified that they did not find an “isolated case” of non-reporting, but a pattern of non-compliance by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and George Tiller.

“If there is a pattern or practice of non-compliance, that is something a prosecutor would want to consider,” Williams said.





Bernard Nathanson, rest in peace

Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post · Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011

Perhaps the most influential graduate of McGill's medical school spent more than 30 years trying to undo what he had done. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who died on Tuesday, at 84, graduated from McGill in 1949, and returned to practice obstetrics and gynecology in his native New York.

In 1968 he cofounded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called the National Abortion Rights Action League), and became a leading campaigner for the unlimited abortion licence in New York and across America. When New York repealed its abortion laws in 1970, he became director of the world's largest abortion clinic. By his own estimate he was responsible for some 75,000 abortions over the next decade, performing 5,000 of them himself. During that period he personally aborted his own child, after impregnating his mistress.

But by 1979, convinced by ultrasound technology that abortion was the destruction of an innocent human life, he stopped doing abortions and became a pro-life activist. . . . .

In 1985 Nathanson produced the film The Silent Scream, an ultrasound image of an actual abortion. Bringing the reality of abortion to the light caused an enormous controversy, as proponents of the abortion licence had to confront what a child being destroyed in the womb looked like. For the pro-life movement it was a major milestone, as it brought new energy to the cause when many were eager to claim that abortion was a settled issue.

It remains the most unsettling of all issues, and Nathanson was deeply unsettled about his role in the 1.5 million annual abortions in the United States. His public policy conversion was but a first step and while remarkable, not unprecedented. On abortion and other issues, changes of position do take place. Yet more difficult was confronting the mystery of evil in his own life.

"Abortion is now a monster so unimaginably gargantuan that even to think of stuffing it back into its cage ... is ludicrous beyond words," he wrote. "Yet that is our charge -- a herculean endeavour. I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age." . . . .

[Read the whole National Post article online.]





Doctor Charged in Newborns’ Killings

A 69-year-old Philadelphia doctor who performed abortions was charged by prosecutors on Wednesday with the murder of seven newborns who were killed with scissors and of a female patient who died of an overdose of anesthetics.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office said Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a family practitioner who had not been certified in obstetrics or gynecology, oversaw a medical practice that regularly performed late-term abortions.

On at least seven occasions, babies born alive during the sixth, seventh and eighth month of pregnancies were killed by having their spinal cords severed with a pair of scissors, District Attorney Seth Williams said in a statement.

A grand jury investigation found that although complaints about Dr. Gosnell and his Women Medical Society clinic in west Philadelphia had been made to a variety of government health and medical licensing officials for more than 20 years — including about the deaths of women during routine abortions — the doctor was never officially sanctioned.. . .  [More]




Toronto pro-lifer arrested, reporter’s camera seized

Patrick B. Craine

Thu Dec 23

TORONTO, Ontario, December 23, 2010 ( - Pro-life witness Mary Wagner was arrested again by Toronto police this morning as she spoke to women waiting to obtain abortions.  One of the officers seized a reporter’s video camera, deleted its contents, and refused to identify himself.

When Wagner arrived at the Bloor West Village Women’s Clinic at 8:30 this morning, she entered the facility’s waiting room and began encouraging women to keep their babies.

She handed out crystal angel ornaments with a card reading, “When you take off the wrapping, you will see a little gift…when you give birth to your child, you will see a priceless treasure.”

The police arrived shortly and escorted her downstairs, but let her off with a warning.  Once they had left, Wagner went back to the abortion facility upstairs to speak with more women.

The police came back with three cars and took her away at 11:30 a.m.

Alissa Golob, head of Campaign Life Coalition’s youth division, did sidewalk counseling outside the building and videotaped the events for LifeSiteNews.

Golob explained that she tried to convince the officers not to follow through with the arrest.  “I stressed to the cop that he had freedom of conscience - and that he did not need to arrest Mary if it went against his intrinsic moral values,” she said.

She also said that at one point she was able to explain to onlookers in a room where she was ordered to go by the police, what Mary was doing. “One man even told me that the reason he was there was because his friend was in the abortuary, and I told him to go and tell her she had another choice,” said Golob.  “So he left the lobby and went to talk to her.”

After Wagner had been dragged to the police car, a male officer seized Golob’s camera.

“He grabbed the camera out of my hands and proceeded to delete all my videos,” she said.  “Becoming immensely infuriated I demanded to know what his badge number was, to which he replied by storming away without acknowledging my existence, other than to hand me back my empty camera.”

The British Columbia native was just let out of jail a few weeks ago after an arrest in Toronto on November 21.  She spent four months in the Milton Vanier Centre for Women earlier this year after another arrest in April, but was acquitted in July.

Golob described Wagner as a “modern-day pro-life hero.”  “As I watched the cop car pull away, ... I couldn’t help but think how symbolic this event really was,” said Golob.  “Just as our Mother Mary said ‘yes’ in answering His call to give birth to our Lord, Mary Wagner also said ‘yes’ to His command to uphold and affirm the culture of life.” did not hear back from the Toronto police by press time.



Bill for Roxanne's Law Defeated

From a December 15, 2010, e-mail from Campaign Life Coalition:

Despite the hard-fought and courageous work of MPs like Rod Bruinooge, plus many pro-life groups and some religious leaders, Roxanne's Law (i.e. Bill C-510) was defeated in a vote of 97-178.

We thank all of you who contacted your member of parliament and urged them to vote in favour of this bill to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from abortion coercion.

To learn more about the vote and to watch a video showing the MPs standing and voting YEA or NAY, visit our special web page .

BCPTL Editor's Note:  

To see how individual members of parliament voted on Bill 510, click here.



Abortion coercion law debated in Parliament - vote on Wed.

by Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, December 13, 2010 ( – Roxanne’s Law, the Canadian private members bill seeking to ban abortion coercion, is set for a vote at second reading Wednesday, after it was debated Monday morning.

“Mothers should never have to make a choice between protecting themselves or the child they love,” said Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), the bill’s sponsor, during Monday’s debate.  Bruinooge, who serves as chair of the parliamentary pro-life caucus, introduced the bill in April, and it had its first hour of debate on November 1st.

Also known as C-510, the bill is named after Roxanne Fernando, a Manitoba woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her into having an abortion after she became pregnant in 2007.  After refusing to have the unborn child killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a snow bank.

If passed on Wednesday, the bill will go to a parliamentary committee for further consideration.

In his speech Monday, Bruinooge criticized those who claim the bill is “redundant” simply because coercion is already banned in the Criminal Code.  This argument, he said, is simply a “cover” for the bill’s opponents.  “The fact that no one has ever been charged with coercing an abortion in Canada is absolute proof that clarification of the law is desperately needed,” he explained.

Criminal law is meant to “state our most important social values and to send a clear message expressing society’s rejection of, and intolerance of, a specific act,” he continued.  “[Roxanne’s Law] reflects a social value about the unacceptability of forcing a pregnant woman into ending the pregnancy she wants to continue.”

“Should one choose to vote against Bill C-510, it will be seen as a choice to turn a blind eye to a horrible injustice,” he concluded.

The bill was supported with speeches by Bruinooge, Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC), Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC), and David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC).

Speaking in opposition were France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ), Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP), and Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC).

Block emphasized that many women are strongly in favour of this bill, contrary to certain MPs’ claims.  “The evidence completely dispels the notion expressed last month in this chamber that women do not want this protection,” she said.  “Nothing I have seen, heard or read could be further from the truth.”

While not all abortion coercion ends in violence against the woman, she pointed out that “any successful attempt at abortion coercion will always result in the death of that woman’s wanted unborn child.”

“Turning a blind eye to this reality violates Canadian’ high standards of justice and human rights,” she added.

“We need to promote a culture of respect for women who make the choice to be mothers,” she said.  “We need to give Canadian women the assurance that the law would be there to protect them when they take on the monumental responsibility of bringing children into the world.”

Ashton, however, dismissed the bill as “a front to attack a woman’s right to choose,” and expressed outrage that such a debate is still taking place “in the year 2010.”

The bill, she said, “attempts to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights through indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be criminalized.”

Decrying the efforts of pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities, Ashton complained that “we see a much greater movement to coerce women not to get an abortion, often with very aggressive tactics.”

She claimed further that the bill is “redundant” because coercion is already illegal under the Criminal Code.

Bev Shipley, on the other hand, pointed out that the bill does not “restrict access to freedom of choice” in any way.  “The truth is the bill actually expands the pregnant woman’s choice and freedom to protect her against anyone who uses coercive means to take away her freedom to continue her pregnancy,” he said.  “The only choice restricted by this bill is the choice of a third party who wants to impose an abortion on a woman against her will.”

Shipley also pointed out that similar laws are in place in other “free democratic societies” like Germany, Italy, France, and some U.S. states.

David Anderson rebuked claims, made by Ashton and others, that Fernando’s death was not related to coercion, and was thus being misused to promote the bill.  “The crown prosecutor at the sentencing hearing was very clear when he talked about the fact that this was specifically a motive by these young men who took her life,” he explained.  “We need to remember that young lady lost her life over this issue.”




UN Partners With NGOs to Push Abortion in Africa

By Samantha Singson,  C-Fam, Nov. 24, 2010

ACCRA, GHANA, November 25 (C-FAM) Earlier this month, a UN office partnered with abortion heavyweights to push for widespread legal abortion at a conference in Ghana, Africa.

Conference participants insisted that access to “safe and legal abortion” is central to reducing maternal mortality, and attacked organized religion and restrictive laws as being obstacles to preventing maternal deaths.

Aissatou Gaye of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) delivered the keynote address.  Gaye stressed that “restrictive policies” and laws were major contributors to unsafe abortion, since most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal.

Gaye lamented the fact that many African countries still have restrictive abortion laws: “Despite the fact that the Beijing Platform for Action called on countries as long ago as 1995 to review laws that discriminate against women—which restrictive abortion laws clearly do, since men cannot get pregnant—very little change has happened in this arena.” 

In addition to legal restrictions, some conference sponsors blamed religion and churches for putting a “stranglehold” on policymakers. Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah, Ipas vice-president for Africa, called restrictive abortion laws “archaic” and complained that attempts to liberalize laws “inherited from colonial administrations” have been circumvented by “anti-abortion churches.” 

Gaye’s interpretation of the Beijing Platform for Action runs counter to conventional understanding at the UN where delegates have repeatedly stressed that the platform does not create any right to abortion and laws on abortion should be decided by states.

According to a UN factsheet, the legal status of abortion is the sovereign right of each nation and that the United Nations does not provide support for abortion or abortion related activities anywhere in the world

UNECA's mandate is to promote the economic and social development in and among countries in the region and to promote international cooperation for Africa's development. While the UN is not supposed to take a position on abortion, in 2006 UN agencies including UNICEF and UNFPA came under fire for intervening in Nicaragua’s decision to ban abortion. 

Gaye expressed her hope that the UN office could continue to partner with conference organizers and welcoming the results of the conference as a guide for UNECA’s work on “women’s rights and sexual and reproductive health.”tic

While conference organizers argued that legalizing abortion would lower maternal mortality, critics take issue with the abortion focus, pointing out that the lack of modern medicine and quality health care, not the prohibition of abortion, are the biggest contributors to high maternal mortality rates.

Entitled “Keeping Our Promise: Addressing Unsafe Abortion in Africa,” the conference was co-sponsored by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), in collaboration with the Ghana Ministry of Health, Ipas, the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s Africa office, Marie Stopes International, the African Women’s Development and Communication Network, and the African Network for Medical Abortion.

At the end of the four-day conference, participants affirmed their commitment to expanding abortion access in Africa and called on governments of African nations to review laws that criminalize abortions.

[C-Fam article]




No end in sight to Gibbons court odyssey


TORONTO, Ontario, November 24, 2010 ( - The production of a startling new document has further delayed an already long overdue trial for Linda Gibbons on a charge of disobeying a court order that has kept her imprisoned for almost two years. At issue is a communiqué sent from Gibbons’s former attorney Peter Jervis to the Ontario Crown attorney’s office. It made it clear he was no longer acting on her behalf when meetings were held in 2001 on the progress of a temporary court injunction issued by a civil court in 1994 that prohibited pro-life activity near certain Ontario abortion sites.

Gibbons could not have legally given her assent to the results of those meetings without representation. The document should have been produced for Gibbons’s current defence team as part of mandated procedures for complete Crown disclosures to defence counsels, but apparently was not. That irked defence lawyer Daniel Santoro, who is pursuing an abuse of process motion in the case and told presiding judge Mara Beth Greene at a hearing on November 19 that the situation is “highly problematic, to say the least.”

“I want an explanation for why this letter was not produced to me,” Santoro added. “I have serious questions and serious problems.” As has been the Crown’s practice throughout the lengthy case, Crown attorney Mathew Asma asserted “it’s going to take time to digest the material presented today … today’s allegation will require some investigation ... there is a large volume of material to review … we will ensure prior information is accurate … we’ll now make sure” everything is provided.

Asma also indicated Jervis may be cross-examined on the contents of his communication and asked for “another week or two” of time, during which Gibbons will continue to languish in prison.

“It sounds like it’s now becoming fairly complicated,” Greene said by way of understatement, while again expressing chagrin at how slow the charge has been in coming to trial. She indicated no further adjournments will be granted in the case, noting once more that Gibbons has already spent far more time in prison on the charge than she will be sentenced to anyway and will surely be released no matter the results of the eventual trial. She ordered the Crown to ensure all relevant materials are presented and provided.

Once again, Gibbons was allowed to sit unrestrained beside Santoro in the body of the courtroom during the latest hearing. She smiled to a group of supporters watching from the gallery as she was handcuffed and led back into custody at its conclusion. One supporter who visited her in prison said she remains in good spirits despite the troubling developments.

The current charge dates back to January 20, 2009, when Gibbons was arrested outside the “Scott Clinic” abortion site in downtown Toronto for allegedly violating the temporary court injunction. An earlier conviction for disobeying a court order regarding a matter in October 2008 is being pursued to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that - as with all criminal charges laid against Gibbons over 16 years - a civil matter was improperly pursued in a criminal court. Word is being awaited on whether the Supreme Court will hear the appeal.

All parties will return to the Ontario Court of Justice at Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto on December 1 at 10 a.m. for what is being called “an update” on the situation related to the current charge.




Vote on Canada’s abortion coercion bill bumped up to Dec. 15th


by Patrick B. Craine Thu Nov 25 15:43 EST Comments (0)

MP Rod Bruinooge is the sponsor of Roxanne's Law. (Photo: Steve Jalsevac/LSN)

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 25, 2010 ( - The vote on the Canadian bill seeking to criminalize abortion coercion, which was initially pushed back to February, is now set for December 15th.

The bill, called “Roxanne’s Law,” is named after Roxanne Fernando, a Manitoba woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to have an abortion after she became pregnant in 2007.  After refusing to have the unborn child killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a snow bank.

It was introduced in April as a private members bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who serves as chair of the parliamentary pro-life caucus.  It is opposed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who says he “will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”

The bill, also known as C-510, received its first hour of debate on November 1st.  “No pregnant woman should ever have to choose between protecting herself and protecting her baby,” Bruinooge told the House of Commons.

It will receive a second hour of debate on December 13th.

The bill has gained wide support among religious and pro-life organizations, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Bishops’ Catholic Organization for Life and Family, and Priests for Life, among numerous others.

Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, has called on MPs to support the bill so that it can be amended in committee.  They expressed reservations, in particular, about passages that could be interpreted to recognize abortion as an acceptable option.

. . .If passed, [the bill] . . . will go for discussion before a parliamentary committee.




Burial missed an opportunity to provide a teaching moment to the public about the horrific nature of abortion and the value of human life.


Elkton, Maryland - Pretty much everything about their short lives was secret. On Monday morning, November 15, 2010, the remains of 34 aborted babies were secretly buried in an Elkton cemetery three months after police discovered them in a storage freezer during a raid on the secret abortion clinic where their lives secretly ended.


Blogger Jill Stanek broke the story of the burial yesterday after speaking with the only reporter to witness the service.


The bodies were the result of late-term abortions illegally started by the notorious abortionist Steven Brigham at his Voorhees, New Jersey abortion mill, and completed at his under-the-radar Elkton, Maryland, clinic. Brigham is not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland and has since had his New Jersey medical license suspended. Two other abortionists involved in Brigham's illegal late-term abortion scheme have also been suspended in Maryland. (Background)


According to Stanek, her source at Elkton's newspaper, the Cecil Whig, says that of the 35 babies recovered, 34 were buried on Monday. One child's remains were claimed by a Canadian couple.


Most interesting is news that eleven death certificates were issued for eleven of the pre-born babies. Does this mean that eleven murder counts could be pending?


Operation Rescue spoke with a representative of the State's Attorney's office in Elkton, who indicated that the case was still an open investigation under the purview of the Elkton Police Department, who conducted the initial raid and recovered the aborted baby remains. Operation Rescue continues to monitor the case.


In the meantime, while it is commendable for the Immaculate Conception Church to arrange for a decent burial for the tiny victims of abortion, it is more than sad that the service was held in secrecy . . . .    
[Read the whole article online.]




Britain Needs Informed Consent Laws to Lower Abortion Rates: Pro-Abortion MP

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 12, 2010 ( – Britain’s abortion rate could be lowered with the adoption of laws requiring women to be given full information as to the effects of abortion, a British MP said earlier this month. Nadine Dorries, the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, believes abortion should remain legal, but has campaigned consistently for more restrictions.

Dorries said in a debate in the House of Commons on November 2 that in Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, informed consent laws have made the “abortion procedure a far kinder one” for women.

“All those countries with good informed consent legislation had significantly lower than average daily abortion rates than the countries that do not have such informed consent legislation. Although a causal link is impossible to prove, these figures suggest that informed consent legislation might prove a good way of reducing Britain's abortion figures.”

Britain’s abortion rate, one of the highest in Europe, slowed slightly last year, but still came close to 200,000, or approximately 572 per day.

“A woman has an assumed right to choose,” Dorries said. “However, she apparently has no right whatever to any information on which to make that choice.”

For any minor surgery, she continued, doctors are required to explain it to patients in detail. They are required to discuss possible pain, the dangers of general anaesthetic and post-operative progress is checked in follow-up appointments. “A woman who has an abortion has none of that.”

“Before the woman received the procedure, she might have felt coerced, pressurized or bullied into the abortion. To her, it might have been a life or the beginning of a life - depending on her perspective. She might have had a seed of doubt, but once she was on the conveyor belt to the clinic, she might have felt helpless and unable to step off.”

“Abortion in this country is an industry from which a small number of organisations and individuals make vast amounts of money. No sensible person would condone this.”

Anne Milton, a minister with the Department of Health, responded for the Government, saying that reducing the abortion rate is “an absolute priority” for the coalition government and that “advances” had been made to ensure women have “safe, legal abortions.”

Milton said that a White Paper report is scheduled to be issued later this year which will set out the Government’s position in more detail, and promised that the results of a review of the evidence surrounding mental health consequences of abortion will be published next year.

In the same debate, Andrew Selous, MP for South West Bedfordshire, pointed out that the cost of “counseling” for abortion is only covered by the public health service if the abortion goes ahead. The woman pays herself if she decides to allow her child to live. 

Moreover, Dorries said, that only “minimal” counseling is available from NHS hospitals and private abortion facilities, and that in those places, there is a natural “conflict of interest.” If a woman is not interested in aborting her child, “no alternative counseling is provided to negate that option.”

Dorries decried the laxity of the existing restrictions that require the consent of two physicians. “Abortion clinics freely admit that consent forms pile up in their offices, waiting for the second signature, long after the event has taken place.”

But Andrew Stephenson, head of the pro-life group Abort 67, told that if he had Dorries in front of him, he would ask her, “Why do you want to restrict abortion? If abortion isn’t killing a small human being, then why have any restriction on it?”

Stephenson, with colleague Catherine Sloane, recently made headlines when they were arrested for showing large graphic images of abortion outside the Marie Stopes private abortion facility in Brighton as part of the Genocide Awareness Project movement.

He said, “You’ve got to ask yourself why. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then you can support it without any restriction. So why does Dorries want greater restrictions but not to outlaw it? But if it’s true that abortion kills an innocent human being, how can she support it?”

Stephenson and Sloane speak to women at Britain’s abortion facilities, and say that their experiences show that “girls don’t know the facts about abortion.”

“That’s perfectly true. Women have told us that they’ve been told by doctors that their baby was just a ‘mass of tissue’ like a kidney bean. So clearly something needs to be done, these women need more information.”

But there is a question of bias and motive, he said. “Whether I trust those people who would kill these women’s babies to give them genuinely accurate information is another question.”

“You’ve got to ask whether someone who is willing to kill a baby would give the sort of information required to help a woman make an informed decision.”

The work of Abort 67, which includes a website featuring graphic images and videos of abortions and aborted children, is to inform women of the grisly reality of what abortion really does to a child.

The women going into abortion facilities, Stephenson said, are often “in no fit state” to make such decisions. “They‘re often being dragged by their friends or families or boyfriends or husbands, and are not capable of understanding what is happening.”

Instead, Stephenson said, “Society as a whole needs a fuller information on this. We need to reach those who are pressuring girls to abort before the situation arises.”

The group aims to do something “much more broad” than giving information to “a girl sitting in a doctor’s surgery hearing a few stats and facts.”

“We do know that when girls see the reality of abortion up front, they change their minds. I would agree that in our experience that’s been the case many times.” This shows the need for a nation wide information campaign. “We need to see girls in schools being properly informed about what abortion is, before they get to the stage when they’re having to make this decision.

“If we’re serious about reducing abortion numbers, we need to be educating men and women from an early age about the truth of abortion. Only when the truth is known everywhere will we decrease those numbers.”

“We’ve seen it on a small scale and we know it would work on the larger scale.”


First Debate on Canada’s "Roxanne's Law" (Bill Against Coercive Abortion) Set for Monday

[title changed from LifeSite's]
October 27, 2010

By Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, October 27, 2010 ( – “Roxanne’s Law,” the Canadian private members bill that seeks to criminalize the coercion of pregnant women into obtaining abortions, is slated for its first hour of debate this Monday, November 1st.

The bill, proposed by Conservative Member of Parliament Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), is inspired by the case of Roxanne Fernando, a Manitoba woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to have an abortion after she became pregnant in 2007.  After refusing to have the unborn child killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a snow bank.

“Roxanne Fernando is someone I view as a real hero in this country,” Bruinooge, who serves as chair of the parliamentary pro-life caucus, told LifeSiteNews on Tuesday.  “Choosing to not end her pregnancy is the very thing that led to her untimely death, and as she was dying in the snow bank, I’m sure she cried out and there was no one there to hear her.”

“Next week in the House of Commons, her voice will be heard,” he added.

Bruinooge introduced the legislation, also known as Bill C-510, in April and it was declared votable on October 19th.  It immediately gained wide support last spring among religious and pro-life organizations, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Bishops’ Catholic Organization for Life and Family, and Priests for Life, among numerous others.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, denounced Bruinooge’s effort as an attempt to reopen the debate on abortion.  “I generally don't comment on private member's legislation," he said in May.  "But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law."

A senior government official at the time told the National Post that Harper will vote against the bill and it will be “very strongly recommended” that Conservative MPs do likewise.

Proponents of abortion have charged that the bill is unnecessary because acts such as harassment or intimidation are already covered under the Criminal Code.  But Bruinooge pointed out that not a single case involving coercive abortion has been prosecuted in Canada, even though it is clear that such situations occur.

Just last week in Texas, a 16-year-old pregnant girl obtained a restraining order against her parents, who were trying to force her into aborting her child.  The girl’s mother had dragged her to local abortion facilities but the daughter refused.

Bruinooge said his bill will “clarify the law.”  “I believe it would have made a difference to Roxanne and I think it empowers all women,” he said.

He expects that the bill will get its second hour of debate in early December, which will be followed by a vote.

See related coverage:

Canadian PM Harper Opposes Law Protecting Women from Coercive Abortions

Canadian Pro-Abort Group Calls for Criminalizing of Pro-Life Activism

Canada's Evangelicals Back Bill Outlawing Coercive Abortion




Day 34 of 40 Days for Life: 445 saved … One Week Left!

[News via ]

Commentary by Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life

October 25th, 2010 ( - How many more lives will be saved this fall?

This is the last week of the campaign and a wild week for me — I go to Southern California before closing this fall’s campaign at the site of one of the largest abortion facilities in the world — the Planned Parenthood in Houston, Texas.

The number of babies God has saved in response to your prayers during this 40 Days for Life campaign is now 445 — that we know of. Please keep praying and fasting!

Here are some of the great stories I’ve received from local 40 Days for Life volunteers.


Tom says the weather was nasty in Cleveland, which made the scene at the abortion center even more depressing than usual. But he and a number of other vigil volunteers prayed silently that God would hear their pleas — it was a Tuesday, an abortion day, and there were many women arriving for appointments.

Near the end of the prayer shift, one of the volunteers offered literature to a woman who was leaving the abortion center. “The woman told us that she had an appointment to abort her baby,” Tom said, “but had changed her mind.”

When asked what made her change her mind, she answered, “God did.”

“We told her that we would be offering prayers of thanksgiving for her courage and of support for her as she carries her baby to term,” Tom said.


When Theresa arrived at the 40 Days for Life vigil, the parking lot at Planned Parenthood was full.

“We saw several women leave after their abortion,” she said, “and one in particular really struck a chord within me. A young girl being escorted by her parents was holding her abdomen and crying. I immediately felt overwhelmed and began crying for her and her aborted baby as I prayed for God’s mercy.”

Shortly afterward, another car pulled in. But no one got out. Theresa and the others at the vigil just kept praying.

After about 10 minutes, the car began to leave. The woman in the car smiled, waved to the volunteers, and said, “I’m keeping my baby!”

“We all thanked the Lord for saving this innocent life,” Theresa said. “I gave Him a special thank you for giving us the gift knowing we made a difference.”


Sue watched as a young woman got out of a taxi at the abortion center in Melbourne where the 40 Days for Life vigil is in progress.

Dave, one of the volunteers, glanced her way and said, “The group of people over there are praying for your unborn child. What do you need? We are here to help you and your child.”

She looked nervous. Dave asked her, “Why isn’t the father of the baby with you?”

“I have not told my husband. I didn’t want to be pregnant,” she said. After a short chat, the woman said she wasn’t really sure she wanted the abortion. “What shall I do now?”

She asked the right person. “Go home and tell your husband, your daughter and your parents about the new member of their family,” Dave said.

“I will ring the same taxi driver,” the woman said. “He gave me his number. I hope he can take me back.” The taxi was there within ten minutes.

Dave spoke to the taxi driver and asked him to take good care of her. With a smile and a thank you, they drove off.

“Please pray for this young woman and her family,” Sue said. “One more to add to the 3,000 plus who have been saved thanks to 40 Days for Life!”



Few Canadians know rules on abortion, poll finds


Two-thirds of Canadians do not know that Canada has no abortion law, according to a new poll that indicates Canadians are woefully misinformed about a landmark ruling in the country’s history.

The poll, which asked 1,022 Canadian adults about their understanding of the country’s abortion regulations, found that just 22% of Canadians correctly identified a woman’s right to an abortion with no governmental restrictions. Canada has not had legislated abortion rules since 1988, making the country an “absolute outlier” on the issue, according to a medical ethicist.

“There’s really only a very small number of Canadians that correctly identify the current situation in Canada,” says pollster Jaideep Mukerji, who worked on the Angus-Reid poll, which was released on Tuesday. “That could be problematic.”

“Once you explain to them what the actual law is, there’s only 27% of Canadians that say that the status quo [of no law] should be maintained. There’s a majority of Canadians that would like to make some change to that status quo,” Mr. Mukerji said. . . . .

[



Case illustrates legal, ethical minefield of surrogate births


When a British Columbia couple discovered the fetus their surrogate mother was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. The surrogate, however, was determined to take the pregnancy to term, sparking a disagreement that has raised thorny questions about the increasingly common arrangements.

Under the agreement the three signed, the surrogate's choice would mean absolving the couple of any responsibility for raising the child, the treating doctor told a recent fertility medicine conference.

Dr. Ken Seethram, revealing the unusual situation for the first time, said it raises questions about whether government oversight of contracts between mothers and "commissioning" parents is needed.

A bioethicist who has studied the issue extensively argues that contract law should not apply to the transaction, unless human life is to be treated like widgets in a factory.

"Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children? No, because children get hurt," said Juliet Guichon of the University of Calgary. "It's kind of like stopping the production line: 'Oh, oh, there's a flaw.' It makes sense in a production scenario, but in reproduction it's a lot more problematic."

Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the biological parents to support the child.

It appears no surrogacy contract has actually been contested in a Canadian court, however, leaving the transactions in some legal limbo.

Seethram's presentation to the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology conference suggested the accord signed by the three in B.C. may have undermined the surrogate's right to make decisions in a "non-coercive" environment.

The surrogate, a mother of two children of her own, eventually chose to have the abortion, partly because of her own family obligations. . . . 

[




U.S. Pro-Life Student Group Defends Arrested Canadian Pro-Life 'Heroes'

By Kathleen Gilbert

ARLINGTON, Virginia, October 5, 2010 ( - An American organization of pro-life students has expressed solidarity with a group of Canadian students arrested Monday morning

 for setting up a display against abortion on the campus of Carleton University in Ottawa.

Ruth Lobo, James Shaw, Nicholas MacLeod, and Craig Stewart were joined by Zuza Kurzawa from Queen’s University in Ontario. All five were taken into custody by police for setting up a Genocide Awareness Project display on the Tory Quad.

The school had forbidden the group from displaying the images in the public area, allowing them to use only an out-of-the-way location, despite warnings from the students' lawyer that they were infringing on the group's freedom of speech. The students were handcuffed, charged with trespassing, fined, and released later that day. (see coverage here)

Kristan Hawkins, head of Students for Life of America, told Tuesday that "pro-life students across the world stand in solidarity with" the arrestees.

“Yesterday, the Canadian government showed once again that it does not respect freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the sanctity of human life," stated Hawkins. "Pro-life students should have the right to speak out on their own campus, particularly when that campus is publicly funded."

Hawkins praised the four pro-life students arrested at Carleton, saying they "showed exemplary faith and courage in the face of discrimination." 

"By silencing these students, Carleton University actually helped advance the pro-life message," she said. "The controversy surrounding this incident will help educate thousands of Canadian students."

Contact information:
Dr. Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President and Vice-Chancellor
503 Tory Building
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Tel: 613 520-3801
Fax: 613 520-4474



Gibbons Trial, Pickets Outside, Packed Courtroom

TORONTO, August 10, 2010 ( - Pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons appeared before Madam Justice Mara Beth Greene today, but no ruling was issued as was expected.  The College Park courtroom was packed with pro-life supporters, with many more outside staging a Show the Truth demonstration witnessing with large signs the reality of abortion.

Numerous police officers attended the court proceedings.  According to one eye-witness, "One female police officer took great pains to restrict Linda's view of the participants." Gibbons was reserved, silent, and particularly attentive throughout the hearing.

Charles Lewis, National Post reporter who last week wrote a front-page extensive news report published in the paper regarding Linda's saga, sat in the front row and was there for the entire day. 

Also in attendance was Mary Wagner, a young woman who has followed in Gibbons footsteps and was herself only released from jail for pro-life witness last month. 

Judge Greene was described as "lively and inquisitive" throughout, finding once that the Crown had put forward contradictory arguments.

Gibbons has been imprisoned continuously since Jan. 20, 2009, when she was arrested outside the downtown "Scott Clinic," which is protected by a 1994 court injunction banning pro-life activity within a specified zone.

Daniel Santoro, lawyer for Gibbons argued that the "temporary injunction" was "abusive" to Linda Gibbons. 

The case was remanded until the first week in September, which means at least four more weeks of incarceration for the great-grandmother.
Linda very much welcomes mail and is allowed two prison visits a week (max. 2 persons per visit)

Visitors must call the prison at least 48 hours in advance and show up at least 15 minutes before the visit. Call 905-876-8300

Mail can be sent to the following address:

Vanier Centre for Women
665 Martin St.
Milton Ontario
L9T 5E6

There are some mailing guidelines because the Detention Centre mailing department reads everything sent to the inmates:

1. Don't use stickers (address, return address, pro-life) on the envelope or card.
2. Don't send any laminated cards, bookmarks, prayer cards, pro-life pamphlets. Non-laminated items will get to her.
3. Don't ask direct questions about daily activity of the detention centre.
4. Put your address directly in the card or letter. (Sometimes the mail sorter keeps the envelope and Linda feels badly if she can't write back.)
5. If you would like to send a little monetary gift to Linda it must be a money order made out to “Linda Gibbons.” The detention centre will deposit the money directly to her account. She uses any donations for envelopes and stamps.
6. Many people add a variety of Christian reading material in their mailings to her. She often shares articles with others in the Centre. She can receive pro-life material that show the development of the baby but not post abortion photos. She can't receive books. Try to stick to one or two pages of reading materials or pamphlets.



The Truth Comes Out - Canadians Want Restrictions on Abortion

[a release from the Association for Reformed Political Action, Canada]

(, August 4, 2010): A newly-released Angus Reid public opinion poll reveals some startling findings on abortion that blow apart the myth that the abortion debate is settled in Canada. In its ten page news release, Angus Reid highlighted that only 21% of Canadians know that there are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada. Even more astounding, when the respondents were told about the reality of the lack of abortion laws and then asked which option they would prefer to regulate abortion, only 27% wanted the status-quo to be maintained. Less than half of the respondents (44%) think that abortions should be publicly funded and a majority think that women under the age of 18 should have to get consent from their parents or legal guardian to get an abortion. To add to all of this, a whopping 79% "would support provincial legislation demanding that health care workers give information about alternatives to abortion to pregnant women."

"These findings are huge", stated ARPA Canada's Director Mark Penninga. "They send a loud a clear signal to our policy makers that Canada's lack of laws on abortion are out of step with public opinion. How strong do the numbers have to be before our leaders decide to deal with this issue in a principled and honest manner?"

For over twenty years Canada has not had any laws regulating abortion, setting us apart from all other nations in the Western world.

"Our leaders need encouragement" said Penninga. "They need to hear from you that you are looking to them to show leadership on this issue. They can no longer use the argument that society first has to change before they reflect these changes in law. And when they do show a willingness to address the issue, they need support," Penninga added, referring to the current Private Members Bill titled Roxanne's Law that was introduced by MP Rod Bruinooge to make it a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion. "Things will change if we each have the courage to stand up for the unborn, and get behind leaders who bravely do the same."


For suggestions for action to support Roxanne's Law, click here.

For the latest new, articles, and videos from ARPA Canada, click here.

The Association for Reformed Political Action strives to educate, equip, and encourage members of Canada's Reformed church community to political action. Learn more here.



Woman Jailed for Abortion Counseling in Toronto Acquitted, Set Free

By John Jalsevac

July 28, 2010 ( – 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 (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 9th 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 ( - 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 ( – 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 ( – 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.



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 for BCPTL

Calgary U Finds Pro-Life Students Guilty over Display

CALGARY, Alberta, May 10, 2010 ( - 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 coverage:

Calgary U to Judge Pro-Life Students in Closed-Door Hearings Today

Calgary U Students Face Expulsion for Pro-Life Display

Calgary University Threatens Pro-Life Students with Arrest and Sanctions



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.]



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

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

May 5, 2010 ( - 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.

: 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: or

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:

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

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

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:




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





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 25th and June 26th, 2010.




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, 


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:






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








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







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








Senate President Satsuki Eda

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


Fax: 011 81 3 3595 7318


Use this link to access e-mail:



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








President Dmitry Medvedev

Ilinka Str, No 23

103132 Moscow, Russia


Fax: 011 7 495 606 0766


Use this link to access e-mail:


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 





United Kingdom:


A national election is to be held in the UK on Thursday, May 6th.  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:



Foreign Secretary

Right Honourable David Miliband

Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

King Charles Street

London England



Fax:  011 44 207 008 2144








President Barack Hussein Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, DC 20500 USA


Fax: 202 456 2461




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





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





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





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






BC Hospitals Refuse to Release Abortion Data

By Patrick B. Craine

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 29, 2010 ( – 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

See related coverage:

Statistics Canada's "Scandalous" Failure to Report Accurate Abortion Numbers

B.C. Pro-Life Researcher Calls on Province to Release Abortion Info



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.

“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.”

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.






Western Catholic Reporter online, April 26, 2010:

MP launches effort to protect women from forced abortions

Rod Bruinooge


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 ( - 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

See related coverage:

Calgary University Threatens Pro-Life Students with Arrest and Sanctions




W into 

Wednesday May 5, 2010

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


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




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 (



"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





May 4, 2010


Dr. Hedy Fry

Member of Parliament



Dear Dr. Fry,


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



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





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.


Check us out on Youtube:

E-mail E-MAIL  Print PRINT     


By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

May 5, 2010 ( - More and larger Marches for Life are taking place cities across 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.

  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.

: The third annual March for Life in Edmonton is setay, May 13. Events gin 


Seattle Mom: School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me


By Patrick B. Craine

SEATTLE, Washington, March 24, 2010 ( – A Seattle mother is furious after learning that her 15-year-old daughter was sent by her school's health center for a secret abortion, reports ABC-affiliate KOMO.

The mother, identified only as “Jill,” says her daughter was given a pregnancy test at Ballard High School's Teen Health Center, which came back positive.  Rather than informing the parents, she said, the center gave the girl a pass and put her in a taxi for the abortuary, all during school 

She added that she had signed a consent form allowing her daughter to be treated at the health center, thinking it covered issues like earaches, sports physicals, or even contraception, but wasn't aware they would be arranging abortions.

"Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion." she said. "Signing this paper makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."

T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which oversees the center, explained that Washington state does not recognize parents' opinions on such issues.  "At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.

Contact Information:

Principal Phil Brockman
Ballard High School
1418 NW 65th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Phone: 206-252-1000
Fax: 206-252-1001


Friday March 26, 2010

Conservative MP Criticizes Ignatieff’s Abortion Advocacy as “Cynical Politics”

 By Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, March 26, 2010 ( - A Conservative Member of Parliament slammed Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN) yesterday over the latter's persistent attempts at pushing abortion in the government's G8 maternal and child health initiative, most recently through a failed Liberal motion.

“I think it was very cynical politics on behalf of Mr. Ignatieff,” commented Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC).  “I think he's crossed the line between pro-choice and simply being pro-abortion, and I think that's who Michael Ignatieff is.”

The Liberals put forward a motion on Tuesday calling on the government to offer a “full range of reproductive health services” in their Third World maternal and child health initiative.  Though abortion was not mentioned, the motion was interpreted as being a clear demand for abortion, based on its criticism of George W. Bush's Mexico City Policy, which prohibited overseas funding for pro-abortion groups.

In putting forward the motion, Del Mastro said Ignatieff “was trying to divide our caucus, divide the country, on an issue that I think Canadians are united on,” namely the maternal health initiative.

The motion, proposed by Liberal MP Bob Rae, was eventually defeated in a vote of 138-144, partly because three pro-life Liberals – Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague, and John McKay – defied their party's whip and voted against.  Thirteen other Liberals didn't show up for the vote, many due to their pro-life convictions.

That the motion was defeated largely by their own party was a devastating embarrassment to the Liberals, and Ignatieff in particular, who has acknowledged that his leadership is being called into question.  At a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday morning, the day after the vote, Ignatieff reportedly accepted full blame for failing to ensure they had the necessary votes.  Party whip Rodger Cuzner and other senior caucus members also apologized for the gaff.

Ignatieff nevertheless has renewed his vow to fight for “reproductive rights” both in Canada and abroad.  “The key issue here is that this party reaffirms and has pressed with, in my view considerable courage, since January, the absolute fundamental importance for Canada to remain consistent in its support of reproductive health rights for women at home and abroad,” he told reporters following a caucus meeting the day after the vote.  “And we will continue to do so.”

According to Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), Ignatieff is “adamantly pro-abortion and he's dragged his party right along Liberal motion defeated; no clarity on abortion

March 23, 2010, from

OTTAWA – A divisive parliamentary vote designed to smoke out the Harper government's attitude to funding foreign abortions came and went Tuesday with voters none the wiser on Conservative policy — or that of the Liberal Opposition, for that matter.

Liberal MP Bob Rae's motion concerning a maternal health initiative at this summer's G8 summit was nominally supported by all three opposition parties in the Commons, but was defeated 144-138 when a number of Liberal MPs failed to show up for the vote.

Three staunchly pro-life Liberals also voted with the Tories.

Conservatives had called the motion "a transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate," while steadfastly refusing to clarify the government's position on the matter.

They voted en masse against ensuring that G8 leaders consider a "full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception" when considering the problem of maternal and child health.

Government members claimed the motion included "rash, extreme anti-American rhetoric" because it specifically slammed the policy of former Republican president George W. Bush, whose administration refused for ideological reasons to fund non-governmental organizations that promoted contraception or made abortion referrals.

That U.S. policy was immediately overturned by President Barack Obama when he took office.

For their part, the Liberals failed to use the words abortion or termination of pregnancy in their motion, and Rae danced around the issue when pressed.

"What we can say as a country is we are not going to discriminate against NGOs that advocate on behalf of women, including referrals for abortion services," Rae said outside the House.

So why not include abortion specifically in the motion?

"Well, you know, I don't think it's a matter of . . . abortion under the . . . you know, not a matter of saying abortion is something we're promoting as a policy," said the usually smooth-speaking Liberal.

The result was a mealy-mouthed debate that pandered to various factions while clarifying little.

[Click here to read the whole article.]


Liberals to push Harper on G8 abortion

Mar. 19 2010 5:38:27 PM

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Liberals are hoping to pin down Prime Minister Stephen Harper over where he stands on abortion in his G8 maternal-health initiative for the Third World.

The Opposition is to introduce a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday demanding that the plan cover a "full range" of family-planning options, which would include contraception and abortion.

The Conservative government has been unclear about whether the plan will fund such options.

The motion says funding all options would be consistent with the policy of previous governments -- both Conservative and Liberal -- and with the approach approved by all G8 countries, including Canada, just last year.

The motion should pass easily with the support of all three opposition parties.

It could put the Conservatives in an awkward spot, forcing them to clarify the issue and potentially alienate one faction or another within the party.

The Harper government has sent mixed messages about the prime minister's decision to champion maternal and child health at June's G8 summit, which he is to host in Huntsville, Ont.

This week, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the initiative won't include family planning "in any way, shape or form."

But Harper and International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda later insisted they're open to considering all options, including contraception, for saving the lives of the world's poorest women. . . . .

[The whole of the above article is to be found at online.]

Pro-Aborts at University of BC Censor Pro-Life Display

By Patrick B. Craine

VANCOUVER, B.C., March 15, 2010 ( – Dozens of pro-abortion protesters at the University of British Columbia (UBC) disrupted a pro-life demonstration last Tuesday, which was being sponsored by the University's pro-life club, Lifeline.

The club was running the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which compares abortion to past genocidal atrocities - displaying, for example, an image of a Holocaust victim beside an image of an aborted baby.

Lifeline has run a GAP campaign nearly every semester since the fall of 1999.  The campus pro-abortion group, Students for Reproductive Choice (SRC), usually lines up with their own protest opposite the GAP displays. This year the two groups had signed an agreement with the Student Union stating that they would stay 30 feet away from each other and remain civil and peaceful during the demonstration.

“Unfortunately, certain students from the SRC club did not follow protocol,” said Ania Kasprzak, co-president of Lifeline. SRC members, along with other protesters from the University of Victoria and the Vancouver community, moved in front of the GAP display, where they held large yellow banners with pro-abortion slogans such as, “Unwanted Pregnancy is NOT a choice” and “Full Access to Free Abortion.”

Kasprzak told LifeSiteNews (LSN) in an e-mail that it was “an emotional day for all involved” and asserted that the members of Lifeline “were not treated with the fundamental rights of a Canadian Citizen.”

“We were denied the right to freedom of expression, and our attempt at sharing the painful reality of abortion with the students of UBC was met with chanting, censorship and discrimination,” she wrote.

“The University did not make any effort to remove the protesters and did not intervene on behalf of the Pro-life students representing GAP.” 

Stephanie Gray, co-founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, who attended the event, told LSN that university representatives maintained that the protesters were free to stand in front of the display because they were not UBC students, and so were not bound by the agreement made between the pro-life and pro-abortion groups.

“My response was to say to them: 'So essentially you're saying non-students have more freedom on this campus than students, because students are limited to the one area',” explained Gray, who is a UBC alumna.

She also said that the university has made pains to limit the event for years in ways that she called “unjust and unreasonable.”

The pro-life club is only allowed to host the display once per semester, and only between 10 am and 2 pm.  They are limited to 4 signs that each have to face the same direction, said Gray; whereas the GAP displays in other places, such as the University of Calgary, feature 10 to 12 signs.  She said it was even more “frustrating” this year because they were told beforehand that the displays had to be set up to face each other in a U shape, which limited visibility even more.

Gray said that they “fully support the right to express one's self from the other side, to make the claims they want, but not to suppress us.”  Setting the pro-abortion banners in front of the pro-life display, she said, “was a clear sign that they were interested in suppression not expression, because they could have been just as visible in other areas.”

Lifeline was “intimidated and bullied and the university didn't stop it,” Gray added.  “So they participated in the bullying by letting it happen.”

Kasprzak noted that, following the event, she has spoken with “a great number of UBC Pro-choice students who are siding with us and shocked at the way the University treated the campus Pro-life students.”

“Some of their testimonies demonstrate that it is not only Pro-Life people who are outraged over this blatant injustice against human rights,” she said.

February 5, 2010

Should This Woman Abort? YOU Decide

That's the premise of a new -- but fictional -- reality show, where the audience makes the choice

Three young women, all very early in unplanned pregnancies, are the main characters of a new "fictional reality" online TV show, in which the viewing audience gets to choose who aborts, and who does not.

BUMP+ is fictional in that the characters are really actresses, not real women in such a situation. But their predicaments are very real and common. One is a young mother of two who is pregnant with another while living with an abusive boyfriend. Another is a young wife whose military husband has been deployed to Iraq, and she got pregnant during a lonely one-night stand. Another is a young woman who has aborted before and says she has no guilt about the procedure.

[Read the rest of the article immediately above at Christianity Today Movies and TV ]



Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial hits YouTube -- Watch it below:
[From Christian TV Examiner]


After  all the hoopla over Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial -- with news outlets suggesting that Tebow's mother would mention the fact that some people wanted her to have an abortion, the video list below seems both tame and powerful all at once.
"I call him my miracle baby," says Pam, Tim Tebow's mother, in the Super Bowl ad that doesn't mention the words "abortion" nor "pro-life" in the ad, only ending with the words "Celebrate Life."
"He almost didn't make it into this time. I can remember so many times I almost lost him," she continued, "it was so hard."
The video ends with Tebow hugging his mother, who calls him her "Timmy" -- a guy that everyone treats so special, she says.
"Get the full story on" reads the end of the ad.

Watch Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial video here:



See also:  LifeSite article "Pro-Aborts Clash Over Short, Sweet Tebow Ad."


Abortion clinics may take charge [in Washington State]


Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/30/2010

The legislature in Washington state is considering a proposal that would regulate pro-life pregnancy clinics that provide services in problem pregnancies. 

According to Paula Cullen, executive director of Life Services of Spokane, what is happening in the state is part of a nationwide campaign pushed by abortion-advocacy groups that seek to steer women in an unplanned pregnancy to abortion providers instead of pregnancy centers.
"A bill has been proposed in the Washington state legislature to regulate pregnancy centers in a way that would be very chilling on our ability to do what we are called to do," Cullen explains. "It would require pregnancy centers to conform to standards defined by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, etcetera."
Those are the most prominent pro-abortion groups in the United States, and the Life Services executive director believes this legislation would force out of business the more than 45 pro-life clinics in the state that are providing $15 million in services to state residents without using tax dollars.

[From Politics and Government at  ]




Saturday January 23, 2010




January 14, 2010

Secretary Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

      (NEW YORK – 

January 14, 2010

Secretary Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

      (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  In Washington last week, United States (U.S.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would engage in a massive funding push over the next five years to promote “reproductive health care and family planning” as a “basic right” around the word. Clinton has previously stated for the record that this includes abortion. The plan includes potentially siphoning off funds currently directed towards fighting HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria.
     Commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the controversial International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Clinton said there were only five years left to achieve ICPD’s goal that “all governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right.”

     Last April, in testimony before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, when asked whether the United States' definition of “reproductive health" includes abortion, Clinton replied that, "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare." 

     In her remarks last week Clinton specifically emphasized the importance of the abortion component of the Obama foreign policy by saying, “One of President Obama’s first actions in office was to overturn the Mexico City policy, which greatly limited our ability to fund family planning programs.” The 1984 Mexico City Policy required all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. In fact, notwithstanding Clinton’s assertions, the ICPD outcome document likewise rules out abortion as a method of family planning.

[You can read the whole article of which the post immediately above is an excerpt.]

PM's women's health initiative must include abortion: Ignatieff

January Jan. 23, 2010

Hundreds of Thousands Join 37th March for Life [in D.C.]

By John-Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, January 23, 2010 ( - Weather reports in the days leading up to Friday’s March for Life warned of rain and snow; however, spirits were high and the weather good on the day of the event, with no snow or rain falling and temperatures remaining bearable.  A sea of youth dominated the massive crowd, one of the largest – if not the largest - in the history of the 37 years of the annual March for Life.

Organizer Nellie Gray told the press that the numbers of marchers this year far exceeded last year, which was estimated at well over 300,000.  That sentiment was echoed by many long-time March for Life participants.

The morning prior to the March was filled with activities around the D.C. area, with tens of thousands in attendance at major events.  The Verizon Centre was filled to capacity for the official 11 a.m. Mass. 

A Human Life International (HLI) ‘mini’-conference also was well attended. The world’s largest pro-life organization packed their hotel conference room, treating guests to bagels and coffee and the experiences of HLI leaders from around the globe.  A short address by this reporter and a final talk by HLI President Fr. Tom Euteneuer concluded the event, after which participants joined the hundreds of thousands gathering for the march.

All along the route hundreds of banners from high schools, colleges, religious orders, and pro-life groups, could be seen leading their companies, with several marching bands keeping a lively cadence throughout the throng.


While pro-lifers marched by the hundreds of thousands, less than a dozen pro-abortion supporters stood before the Supreme Court with signs. Reading the CNN coverage, however, one would be led to believe the numbers were equal.

NPR similarly understated to an extreme degree the disparity between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces, admitting only that there were a “smaller number of pro-choice demonstrators.”  Notably missing was the fact that the pro-abortion demonstrators were outnumbered about 20,000 to 1, or more.

The Washington Post was more accurate, but still off by a factor of at least 10.  “Tens of thousands of abortion opponents marched through the cold Friday in the annual March for Life,” reported the Post, adding, “Few counter-demonstrators were visible along the route, but some gathered in front of the Supreme Court.”

USA Today gave a feel for the massive pro-life presence at the March reporting that “120 buses of abortion protesters from southwestern Pennsylvania” alone took part.

Even in the midst of such extreme bias from the mainstream media, however, it was easy to pinpoint the most outlandish report – from Newsweek.  The report by Krista Gesaman suggested that what was missing from the march were young women.

But far from missing, young women were in fact the dominant demographic at this 37th March for Life.


Congressman Chris Smith addressed the marchers prior to the commencement of the event, pointing to what he believes is the motivation for this year’s massive turnout.  He noted that “with healthcare plans trying to begin using taxpayer dollars fund abortions for the first time since the 1970s via forcing insurance coverage, the U.S. is looking at the single greatest expansion of abortion since the tragic Roe v Wade court ruling 37 years ago.”

Smith pointed out that in his first year in office, President Obama has moved swiftly to: allow the use of U.S. taxpayers money to fund abortion groups all over the word by rescinding the Mexico City Policy; enable China’s coercive population control program by funding the United Nations Population Fund; and roll back restrictions on funding for human embryo-destroying stem cell experimentation. Obama is also in the process of altering federal regulations to roll back the nation’s existing conscience protection laws that protect the rights and freedoms of healthcare providers (such as Catholic hospitals, physicians and nurses) who are opposed to performing abortions on personal or moral grounds.

However, Smith went on to say, embodying the spirit of the pro-life movement: "President Obama — the abortion president — should know this: even though you have unleashed the full might and power of your administration in the ignoble promotion of abortion on demand both in the United States and around the world, especially in Africa and Latin America, we do pray and fast for you, even as we tenaciously fight your anti-life policies.”


Citizen Link, Jan.22, 2010:

Thousands March for Life in Washington, D.C.

Thousands of people descended upon Washington, D.C., to take stand up for the preborn in the annual March for Life event today.
One of the primary topics of today's march was keeping public funding of abortions out of health care.

[To read the whole article, Go to the CitizenLink site to read the whole article.]


National Cancer Institute Researcher Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in Study


Aborton Breast Cancer Press Releases

Press Release 

Contact: Karen Malec, 847-421-4000

Date: January 6, 2010


2nd Breast Cancer Scandal: National Cancer Institute Researcher Louise Brinton Reverses Position, Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in Study that Fingers Oral Contraceptives as a Probable Cause of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer 


Study is 9 months old, but still no warnings from cancer establishment


Less than two months since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.


An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]


Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.


"Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."


Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the non-existence of the link was "well established." [2]


Dolle's team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among "known and suspected risk factors." 


Brinton and Daling had previously studied this population from the Seattle-Puget Sound area in the 1990s and reported risk increases between 20% and 50% among women with abortions. [3,4] In the 2009 study, they and their co-authors wrote that their findings concerning induced abortion, OC use and certain other risk factors, "were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women."


"Obviously, more women will die of breast cancer if the NCI fails in its duty to warn about the risks of OCs and abortion and if government funds are used to pay for both as a part of any healthcare bill," said Mrs. Malec.


A brief analysis of the study (click here), Dolle et al. 2010, was provided by Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology and deputy chair for biology at Baruch College, City University of New York.


Last year, studies from Turkey and China also reported statistically significant risk increases for women who had abortions. [5,6]


The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.




1. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. 


2. "Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer," U.S. National Cancer Institute, March 4, 2003. Available at:


3. Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst1994;86:1584-1592. White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505-514.


4. Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF, et al.  Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-380.


5. Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al.  Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – aUniversity Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37.


6. Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009

[From Abortion Breast Cancer Press Releases ]


Friday, January 15, 2010

What scientists don't tell you about abortion

Lorne Gunter,  National Post 

For the past month or so, the pro-life community has been buzzing. It would appear that at long last one of the leading breast-cancer researchers in the world, Louise Brinton, chief of the hormonal and reproductive epidemiology branch of the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), has admitted a link between abortion and a higher risk of breast cancer among women.

Dr. Brinton's admission-- if you can call it that -- is not exactly straightforward. She is one of the co-authors of a study of 1,600 Seattle women that seems to show a 40% greater chance of a woman developing breast cancer if she has had an abortion.

Still, even such an indirect concession by Dr. Brinton would be remarkable.

In 2003, Dr. Brinton chaired a conference on the ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link for the NCI and invited "over 100 of the world's leading experts" to attend.

To that point, worldwide, 29 of 38 studies in the previous 40 years had shown a slightly elevated risk for breast cancer among women who had prematurely terminated a pregnancy -- somewhere between 30% and 100% greater risk, right in the range of the new Seattle study. Interestingly, though, none of the authors of the raised-risk studies was invited to the NCI conference, nor were any of their findings discussed. Yet at the end of the conference, it was declared to be "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

Frankly, the whole event reminded me of a United Nations conference on global warming: Invite only those scientists who agree with the preconceived conclusions of the gathering's organizers. Ignore (or even suppress) any research that tends to disprove their theories. And in the end declare that the "science is settled" because all the world's "experts" have said so.

So while Dr. Brinton has only signed off on the conclusions of a single Seattle study -- she has made no public admission of an change of thinking -- the fact she chose to associate herself with a study showing an ABC link is important.

But is the risk the study shows truly significant?

Not really. . . . .

As several defenders of the "well-established" view on ABC have pointed out, the Seattle study did not correct for income or obesity or any of a handful of other factors that similar health studies have accounted for. Therefore, they argue, the elevated risk seen in this latest study might well just be statistical static.

And it might be.

But why then the rush to denounce anyone who so much as asks questions about the conventional view on the subject? (Again, a parallel between the ABC debate and the global warming debate.) One blogger wrote that anyone supporting the Seattle research was "anti-choice, anti-women and anti-health."

The answer, of course, is that even cancer research is now politicized. For more than a decade there have been several reputable scientists convinced of a small ABC risk. But they have been unable to get heard over the din of name-calling and character assassination that the pro-choice side has thrown up to prevent any claw-back of abortion rights.

There is plenty of hypocrisy in this, too. Second-hand smoke increases non-smokers' risk of lung cancer by less then 20%, even with prolonged, heavy exposure. That's about half the apparent increased risk of developing breast cancer from having an abortion. Yet governments have passed all sorts of laws shielding the public from secondhand smoke at work, the arena, the mall and the stadium.

This is pure bias. Politicians and cause pleaders favour abortion and oppose smoking, so they admit risks only as it suits their agendas.

[You can read the whole of the article immediately above on the National Post online.]


Planned Parenthood Doubles "Abortion Services" From 2007 to 2008 to Over 1 Million
Expanding into "climate change” to increase support to fund abortion growth

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK, January 2, 2009 ( - International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) recently released its annual performance report for 2008-2009. Despite an economic downturn and a slight decrease in annual income, the abortion industry giant boasts of increased activity across all of its lines of work, including condom distribution, advocacy and abortion services.

IPPF’s overall income for 2008 was US$119.7 million, down from over $120 million the previous year. While IPPF's total financial intake dipped, its abortion business boomed.  The organization provided almost 428,000 “abortion services” to young people alone, with a staggering 1,134,549 total number of such services – almost double the number from 2007 – across the globe.

Despite an increase in abortion services, IPPF remains unsatisfied with the figure, arguing that "in comparison to other types of services provided by IPPF Member Associations, these figures remain low and indicate that much needs to be done in terms of future investment in this area if IPPF is to meet its objectives of providing women with the choice and right to safe abortion when faced with an unwanted pregnancy."

In the report, IPPF boasts of promoting its abortion agenda among its member associations in traditionally pro-life countries. IPPF highlights its work in pro-life Ireland, which maintains strict limits on abortion access despite pressure from its EU partners and abortion advocacy groups such as IPPF.  IPPF boasts that through its member associations, it has been on the ground helping to provide support for rallies and debates to challenge Ireland's pro-life laws since "public debate is often dominated by religion."

IPPF also boasts of its successes in Spain, where abortion only had been permitted in cases of rape, fetal impairment or for the health of the mother. The IPPF report credits its Spanish Member Association for successfully campaigning in 2008 for an amendment to the abortion law to remove restrictions and legalize first trimester abortions on demand.

The report laments the "dramatic decrease in funding for family planning" from international donors and claims that the drop "represents a decline in donor interest rather than a decline in need." IPPF intends to focus its future work on securing sustainable funding for its activities by capitalizing on statements made by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on family planning funding, and on the Obama administration's repeal of the Mexico City policy so that funding to "international sexual and reproductive health organizations" will be restored.

IPPF views these developments as part of a "growing international interest" which "needs to be seized upon in order to drive forward the agenda for universal access to reproductive health."  IPPF will be focusing on using the "emerging momentum around maternal health to secure new support and financing" to fund abortion growth.

Beyond its traditional emphasis on abortion, contraception, family planning and advocacy, Executive Director Gill Greer indicates IPPF will expand into new areas such as “population dynamics” and “climate change” to garner increased funding.



[U.S.] Senate Votes to Keep Abortion in Federal Programs


  Right to Life of Michigan's Blog, Wednesday, December 9, 2009

U.S. Senators Kill Prolife Amendment

Battle is far from over

By a vote of 54 to 45, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, December 8, tabled (a.k.a. killed) an amendment to remove elective abortion from a sweeping health care restructuring bill proposed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (H.R. 3590). Both Senator Carl Levin and Senator Debbie Stabenow voted to table the amendment which would have kept federal funds from paying for elective abortions in the Senate health care reform bill.

A majority of senators voted to keep abortion covered in the proposed federal government health care program; however, now the vote on cloture on the bill itself will become the key vote on whether to put the federal government into the abortion business. Right to Life of Michigan opposes cloture on the bill, which would require 60 affirmative votes, if federal funding of abortion is included.

The prolife amendment, which was rejected, was sponsored by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Robert Casey (D-PA). It contained the same substance as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which was adopted by the House of Representatives on November 7, 240-194. Both amendments would prevent the federal government insurance program (the "public option") from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest). In addition, both amendments would prevent federal subsidies from being used to purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion but would not restrict the sale or purchase of such policies with private funds.

[See also :  CitizenLink focusaction UPDATE, Dec. 10, 2009 video, 
 "Senate Rejects Pro-Life Amendment to Health Care Reform"]


Young Pro-life Europeans Demonstrate for Life at Strasbourg Court

By Hilary White

STRASBOURG, December 10, 2009 ( - Young pro-life advocates from across Europe demonstrated in Strasbourg yesterday as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) heard arguments in the case of three Irish women who have demanded that their country abandon its legal protections for the unborn.

At a vigil, organised by Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland, pro-life young people from Ireland, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Romania held placards outside the court reading, "Europe needs children not abortion," "Hands off Ireland's pro-life laws" and "Abortion kills children."

Members of the Irish pro-life group Youth Defence said they were protesting the "profoundly undemocratic push by the abortion industry to seek the imposition of abortion on Ireland by a foreign court."

The "A, B and C v. Ireland" case is being sponsored by the Irish Family Planning Association, an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood as part of a larger effort by abortion lobbyists to overturn pro-life laws in sovereign countries using international agreements on human rights.

Olivier Jarry from France said outside the court, "Ireland is one of the only countries to have resisted abortion. The people of Ireland have voted against abortion, yet now there is a danger that the European institutions will change Ireland's constitution."

Katy Robinson, Rebecca Roughneen and Sorcha Nic Mhathuna of Youth Defence, said they had travelled to Strasbourg to represent the majority of Irish people who are pro-life and who don't want abortion in Ireland.

"We stand here in solidarity with the children whose lives are threatened by the possible outcome of the court's ruling," they said.

In an email to prior to the event, Rebecca Roughneen noted the irony of holding a human rights tribunal on abortion. She said, "The human rights of the person whose life is being ultimately judged - the unborn child - are being ignored."

She said the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) was trampling on the sovereignty of the Irish legal system. "The IFPA had failed to persuade the people of Ireland of the validity of the abortion's industry's claims and were now seeking to have abortion imposed on the country."

The three women's lawyer, Julie Kay, told media that anyone aborting in Ireland "is legally bound to life in prison, an horrific perspective ... there is then an obligation to protect their identity in order to protect them and their rights."

"It is not known when life begins ... philosophers, medical personnel and governments may differ on the question," Kay said. The women argue that Ireland's pro-life law violates several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life.

The Irish government's Attorney General, Paul Gallagher, countered that the law specifically protects the right to life and is based on "profound moral values."

But Rebecca Roughneen said, "The IFPA are deliberately confusing legitimate medical treatment with abortion."

She pointed out that the medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, for example, is called a salpingectomy, will save the life of the mother and is a perfectly legitimate procedure in Ireland.

"This treatment is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby may die, but the baby is not deliberately killed. It's not a surgical abortion which deliberately and violently ends the unborn child's life," she said, adding that "abortion is not healthcare, it is the denial of the most basic human right; the right to life."



When abortion isn't a choice

By Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

One of the few incontrovertible assertions one can reasonably make is that no one supports forced abortion.

Yet, coerced abortions, as well as involuntary sterilizations, are commonplace in China, Beijing's protestations notwithstanding. While the Chinese Communist Party insists that abortions are voluntary under the nation's one-child policy, electronic documentation recently smuggled out of the country tells a different story.

Congressional members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission heard some of that story Tuesday, two days before President Obama was slated to leave for Asia, including China, to discuss economic issues. Among evidence provided by two human rights organizations, ChinaAid and Women's Rights Without Frontiers, were tales of pregnant women essentially being hunted down and forced to submit to surgery or induced labor.

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of the Frontiers group, told the commission that China's one-child policy "causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on Earth."

I met Littlejohn for breakfast the day before the hearing. A petite wife and mother -- as well as a Yale-educated lawyer -- Littlejohn gave up her intellectual property practice in San Francisco after a life-altering illness to become a full-time activist for Chinese women. She is remarkably buoyant, considering the knowledge she has absorbed. Action, she says, is her way of coping with the unconscionable.

Here's the question Littlejohn insists we consider: What really happens to a woman who doesn't have a "birth permit" and has an "out of plan" pregnancy?

The answer is simple and brutal: A woman pregnant without permission has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development. . . . .

To be clear, some of the doctors online expressed concern for the rights of the child. Others, however, worried only about potential legal ramifications. Technically, it is illegal in China to kill a baby, one is relieved to learn, but family-planning imperatives sometimes prevail. According to a 2009 State Department report, monetary incentives and penalties are attached to population targets, creating what amounts to bounties on the unborn.

As recently as July, officials of China's National Population and Family Planning Commission said that the one-child policy "will be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come," according to Xinhua, the state-run news agency.

The violence of these procedures doesn't only kill the child in some instances. In two of the cases described in a document leaked this past August, the mothers died, too. Those who dissent, meanwhile, are persecuted.

Such has been the fate of activist Chen Guangcheng, who is serving a four-year sentence after exposing 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations in Linyi County, Shandong province, in 2005. Named by Time magazine as one of 2006's top 100 people "who shape our world," Guangcheng, who is blind, was severely beaten and denied medical care the following year, according to an Amnesty International report.

The one-child policy has created other problems that threaten women and girls. The traditional preference for boys has meant sex-selected abortions resulting in a gender imbalance. Today, men in China outnumber women by 37 million, a disparity that has become a driving force behind sex slavery in Asia. Exacerbating the imbalance, about 500 women a day commit suicide in China -- the highest rate in the world, which Littlejohn attributes in part to coercive family planning.

Obviously, the United States is in an awkward position with China, our second-largest trading partner and the largest holder of our government debt. But Littlejohn hopes Obama will "truly represent American values, including our strong commitment to human rights." She is also calling on Planned Parenthood and NARAL to speak up for reproductive choice in China.

On this much, both sides of the abortion issue can agree: Forced abortion is not a choice. Averting our gaze from China's horrific abuse of women is.

[You can read the whole of the article above online.]




Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

Monday, November 02, 2009
Joseph Abrams


Abby Johnson, 29, stands outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Tex., alongside Shawn Carney of the Campaign for Life. Johnson quit after watching an ultrasound of an abortion

The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a "change of heart" after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus in September.

'When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice," Johnson told But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, "I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart ... a spiritual conversion."

Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695.

"Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't have enough money — we've got to keep these abortions coming,'" Johnson told "It's a very lucrative business and that's why they want to increase numbers."

. . . .

Johnson said she never got any orders to increase profits in e-mails or letters, and had no way to prove her allegations about practices at the Bryan branch. She told that pressure came in personal interactions with her regional manager from the larger Houston office.

But she said she got involved with the clinic "to help women and ... [do] the right thing," and the idea of raking in cash seemed to go against what she felt was the mission of the 93-year-old organization.

"Ideally my goal as the facility's director is that your abortion numbers don't increase," because "you're providing so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion services.

"But that was not their goal," she said.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood refused to answer questions about Johnson's accusations, but released a statement noting that a district court had issued a temporary restraining order against the former branch director and against the Coalition for Life, an anti-abortion group with which Johnson is now affiliated.

"We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary," said spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla.

It is unclear what made Planned Parenthood seek the restraining order. Johnson said she did not intend to release any sensitive information about her former patients at the clinic.

A hearing is set for Nov. 10 to determine whether a judge will order an injunction against Johnson and the Coalition for Life, which has led protests outside the clinic and joined her in a prayer vigil there last month.

Johnson hasn't found a job since she quit on Oct. 6, but she said she's enjoying the time off to be with her 3-year-old daughter.

"It's been great just to spend some time at home and get a break," she said.

[You can read the whole article on Fox News online.]





Crown Stays Charges Against Campus Pro-Life Advocates . . .

National Post
04 Nov 2009

Calgary Six members of an anti-abortion group that defied University of Calgary officials by refusing to alter a campus billboard campaign depicting dead fetuses will not go to trial on charges of trespassing. The Crown stayed the charges against Campus Pro-Life members, five of whom were U of C students, after determining there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution, said Alberta Justice spokesman David Dear. “It confirms our position that we do have the right to be on our own campus,” said club president Leah Hallman. “We will continue to be the voice of the unborn. We’ll continue to present the issue peacefully.” . . . .

[The above article in complete form is found in the National Post online.]


University of Victoria Abortion Debate Overflows Capacity

By Patrick B. Craine

VICTORIA, British Columbia, October 22, 2009 ( - The University of Victoria`s (UVic) pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth, hosted a wildly popular debate on abortion at the campus yesterday, which generated so much interest that the presenters offered a second such event to accommodate those students who were barred from the first due to fire regulations.

Stephanie Gray from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) debated against UVic philosophy professor and bioethicist Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge.

"I thought it went very well," said Gray. She says the 200-seat room overflowed, with the aisles packed with people sitting on the floor, until security enforced the fire code and made everyone leave who was not in a seat.

In response, Gray and Kluge opted to offer one debate for the first 200 from 3:30-5:00 p.m., followed by a second for another 150 from 5:00-6:30 p.m.

While Gray says Kluge is "misguided" on the abortion issue, she also said that she was impressed with the approach he took to the event.  The two were "extremely civil," sharing lunch beforehand.  As well, at the beginning of each debate Kluge commented on how "deplorable" it was that his colleagues at the university had refused to debate Gray, and insisted on her having the freedom to present her view.

The debate centred on the issue of personhood.  Focusing on the question 'what is the unborn?', Gray sought to prove the humanity of the unborn scientifically.  She argued that personhood should be based on the fact of being human, and that the differences between the unborn and the born come down to accidental differences of age and size.

Kluge, on the other hand, emphasized that the unborn certainly are human, says Gray, and scoffed at those who claim the baby is 'part of the woman', but argued that an unborn baby is not a person from conception, but becomes so at some later point.

The event was taped, and the video should be posted to Youtube shortly.

While the majority of CCBR's presentations go off without incident, their presence on university campuses has occasionally provoked strong responses and even loud protests from pro-abortion students.  On October 6th, CCBR's Jose Ruba was drowned out for two full hours while he attempted to present at McGill University.  Police were called and two arrests were made, but no charges laid.  University officials spoke out strongly against the protest afterwards.

Last February, Ruba was shouted down during the same presentation at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.  In that case, the university itself ended his talk, and he was only able to continue after moving to a nearby church.

Yesterday, about a dozen protesters stood in front of Gray as she spoke in the first debate, holding posters with their backs to her.  While they blocked a view of her from certain angles, she could be heard, and her screen could be seen, she said.  In the second round, only three protesters showed up, and two left in the first five minutes of her speaking.

"We just let them ... do what they did, because I think that goes to show [their] immaturity and disrespect," she said, "and so that spoke volumes to the audience."

See related coverage:

McGill University Officials Speak Out Against Silencing of Pro-Life Presentation

Pro-Life Event at St. Mary's U Told to Disband after Protesters Disrupt


[The pro-choice author does not want her case to be used in the abortion debate, yet it raises serious qustions about the issue of abortion on demand and the story, even though it is about an extreme example,  surely has lessons about the pro-abortion mentality and about the pressures from partners that help drive some women to have abortions.]

Friday, October 2, 2009

Woman 'addicted to abortion' releases memoir

Mary Vallis,  National Post 

Fifty one rejection letters -- that is the number Irene Vilar received before she finally found someone to publish a tale so extreme it would surely be fiction if it wasn't her personal story: A woman who says she had 15 abortions and describes it as an addiction.

The book, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict -- a graphic and disturbing tale of one woman's abortions and her personal quest to understand her actions -- is bound to provoke a fury when it is released next week.

It is no surprise that publishers backed away. Ms. Vilar says the dozens of rejection letters "map the psychic realm" of the United States, where abortion remains such a volatile topic that a Kansas doctor who provided the service was shot and killed during a Sunday church service in May.

Now 40 years old and raising two daughters, aged three and five, Ms. Vilar has changed public records to protect her family's privacy and refused to go on a book tour.

She is prepared for her book to be misunderstood. She takes full responsibility for her actions, is adamantly pro-choice and does not intend for her book to become part of the divisive anti-abortion debate. Indeed, she describes herself as "an extreme pathological case."

"I'm solely responsible for my actions and that's what this book is about, a search for understanding and self-accountability," she said in an interview from her home in Colorado. "I refuse to see myself as a victim."

[Click here to read the whole article in the National Post online.]



CitizenLink, September 18, 2009:

White House Noncommittal on Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

The Obama administration remains noncommittal on the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion within health-care reform. That's according to Chairmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action (AUL), who met with White House officials on the issue Thursday.

Yoest said senior staff members "reiterated the president's commitment to having no federal funding for abortion." But she said that pledge does not go nearly far enough.

"Without an explicit commitment to very clear, plain language that bans federal funding for abortion in health-care reform, we do see abortion in there," Yoest said.

Yoest also delivered a petition with more than 39,000 signatures from pro-life Americans asking President Barack Obama to veto any bill that forces insurance companies to cover abortion or makes taxpayers pay for abortion.

[From:  ]


Public Memorial Service for Slain Pro-Life Hero to be Held at Football Stadium Wednesday

By John Jalsevac
OWOSSO, Mich., Sept. 15 ( - Hundreds of friends and family of Jim Pouillon are expected to gather to pray and remember the life and work of the slain pro-life activist on Wednesday. A public memorial service for Pouillon is scheduled to be held at Willman Football Stadium in Owosso, Michigan, beginning at 1:00 p,m.

Wednesday's memorial follows a vigil held in memory of the well-known pro-life activist this past weekend. Hundreds of mourners gathered Sunday on the sidewalk outside Owosso High School, where Pouillon was shot and killed on Friday while protesting abortion.

Suspect Harlan James Drake, who has been charged in the first degree, premeditated murders of Pouillon and Mike Fuoss, a local business owner, reportedly told prosecutors that he targeted the locally famous pro-life activist because of his message.

Investigators seized eight firearms and 10,000 rounds of ammunition from Drake's house and truck, according to Mike Compeau, Owosso's public safety director. However, Compeau said there was no evidence that Drake was planning a larger-scale attack. "It was ammunition for the guns - 22s, shotguns - no assault rifles or anything like that," he said.
Immediately after Wednesday's memorial service, friends of Pouillon will gather to pray and rally in front of the local Planned Parenthood in opposition to violence against innocent people.

Cal Zastrow, a friend of Pouillon as well as a member of PersonhoodUSA, said today about the memorial service. "We must emulate Jim's example as a follower of Jesus Christ and public defender of pre-born babies.

"We will join together in Owosso to praise Jesus Christ, remember Jim, and continue to speak out against all violence against the innocent - the tragic violence that killed Jim on September 11th, and the tragic violence that kills thousands of pre-born babies daily at Planned Parenthood.

"Being pro-life doesn't save any babies from murder, but acting pro-life does."

According to the Associated Press, interim school superintendent, Susan Wooden, has received some complaints about allowing the memorial service to take place in the football stadium. However, she said that the district has a policy of allowing the community to use the facilities.

"There are some people that are fine with that and some people who are disappointed. I'll leave it at that," Wooden said. "I would just ask that those who attend please respect the rights of all those present to peacefully express their views and condolences."

See related coverage:

Well-Known Local Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

"Jim the Sign Guy": Slain Pro-Lifer, Father of Two, Remembered by Friends as Cheerful, Peaceful Activist

Suspect Charged with First-Degree Premeditated Murder of Michigan Pro-Lifer


Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?


Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.

August 21, 2009

Updated: August 25, 2009


Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."


Obama’s "Fabrications" Remark

Obama’s remarks Wednesday came during a telephone conference call to thousands of listeners, organized by religious organizations supporting his health care proposals. He said that "there has been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness." And then he lumped in abortion coverage at the end of a list of claims that he branded as untrue:

Obama, Aug. 19: We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been. And that’s why we’re seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You’ve heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me just give you one example, this notion that we are somehow setting up "death panels" that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end of life decisions. Entirely voluntary, it gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already exercise. That’s the kind of distortion that we’ve been hearing too much of out here.

We’ve heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens. That’s not true. There’s a specific provision in the bill that does not provide health insurance for those individuals. You’ve heard that there’s a government takeover of health care. That’s not true. You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

The White House did not post any transcript of the president’s words, but sponsors of the conference call, a coalition of faith-based groups supporting an overhaul of the health insurance system, posted the full audio of the president’s call on its Web site. His words come near the very end of the recording, and we transcribed them from the recording.

Abortion foes quickly denounced Obama’s statement as untrue. The NRLC’s Johnson said "the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions." And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct. Though we of course take no position on whether the legislation should allow or not allow coverage for abortions, the House bill does just that.

The House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) actually made no mention of abortion when it was introduced. Johnson refers to an amendment to the bill adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee July 30. Abortion rights proponents characterize it as a compromise, but it hasn’t satisfied the anti-abortion side. Offered by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California, the amendment was approved narrowly by the committee, 30 - 28, with most but not all Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans backing it. The Capps amendment states that some abortions "shall" be covered by the "public option" plan, specifically those types of abortions that Congress allows to be covered under Medicaid, under the so-called "Hyde Amendment," which has been attached regularly to appropriations bills for many years. These are abortions performed in cases or rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: "The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."

We can’t say what anyone will do in the future. But Obama himself said on July 17, 2007, that "[i]n my mind, reproductive care is essential care" and would be covered by his public insurance plan. He was addressing Planned Parenthood:

Obama, July 17, 2007: We’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care.

Obama did not use the word "abortion," but a spokesman for the campaign said later that abortion would be included, according to the Chicago Tribune. The NRLC has posted an unedited video of Obama’s response on YouTube (along with some comments which are the group’s opinions and not necessarily those of anyone at

Public Funds

The Capps amendment does contain a statement – as we noted in an earlier article – that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers. The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies ("affordability credits" for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.

Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.

Supporters of abortion rights argue that this would cause some women who now have abortion coverage to lose it, by forcing private insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from plans so that they can be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. For example, NARAL Pro-Choice America states:

NARAL: Anti-choice members of Congress aren’t satisfied with the Capps compromise. They want to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market by prohibiting such coverage in the new health-care system – thus taking away coverage from women who already have it.

We can’t predict how many insurance plans might be affected by the Stupak language. And we take no stand on whether all abortions should or should not be covered.

As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.

– by Brooks Jackson

Update, Aug. 25: We have received letters on this subject from representatives of Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee, and have posted them in the FactCheck Mailbag.


Killing Girls Is Bad, Killing Boys Is Okay

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is upset about abortion. Well, not abortion per se. But some abortions. Of girls. Apparently killing boys is okay.

Abortion is one issue never likely to disappear. It sets protection of life and liberty in apparent conflict and raises challenging issues such as responsibility and privacy. Abortion isn't amenable to easy political compromise and any resolution is apt to leave a lot of people feeling uncomfortable.

But the issue can't be avoided. The bottom line of abortion is a dead baby. No amount of obfuscation and euphemism can hide the obvious. And if abortion is a legal right, beyond regulation by government, then motivation is irrelevant. If you have a right to kill all babies, you have a right to kill girl babies.

However, Secretary Clinton, a supporter of unrestricted abortion, appears disturbed by the logical outcome of her policy preferences. In commenting on her international agenda for women, she observed that in some nations "girl babies are still being put out to die." Moreover, she explained: "Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes."

Secretary Clinton's remarks received surprisingly little comment from those she should have most offended -- other advocates of abortion "rights." Pro-lifers suggested that Secretary Clinton was a traitor to the abortion cause, but Laurie Carlsson defended the secretary's "nuanced view" on an issue that is "neither simple, nor clean-cut along lines of political beliefs or moral values."

Yet Secretary Clinton challenged two fundamental precepts of the case for legalized abortion. First, she tied the "infanticide rate of girl babies" to sex selection abortions. If sex-based infanticide and abortion are morally equivalent, then non-discriminatory infanticide and abortion should be morally equivalent as well. Secretary Clinton has raised the core moral challenge of abortion: once we enter the continuum of life, our essential humanity has been established. The moment of birth has no obvious moral distinction. Else why would Secretary Clinton be as upset with those who abort baby girls as with those who put newborn girls out to die?

Second, Secretary Clinton undercuts the essential argument of abortion activists: there is a right to unrestricted abortion (or abortion "on demand"). That means for any reason. However, the secretary has identified, to her, at least, one illegitimate reason. If there is one, might there not be others?

There are obvious social consequences of sex selection via abortion: for instance, a lot of men who can't find wives. But that doesn't seem to be Secretary Clinton's point. Rather, she is concerned, rightly, about the moral implications of this practice.

It is almost an axiom on the Left that there is no worse offense than to "discriminate," which makes sex selection abortion so odious to some. National Post writer Barbara Kay says "sex selection is a form of bias -- arguably even a form of hatred -- against an identifiable group." But surely sex selection is not the only form of inappropriate discrimination. How about abortion of the handicapped, whether physical or mental? Writer George Neumayr has warned: "Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace." This also is discrimination. . . . .

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

[Click here to read the whole of the article.]


Back to School: Abortion Pop Quiz


Did you know that abortion is legal in Canada up until birth? Did you know that women can have partial birth abortions in this country? Did you know we have no laws whatsoever regulating this important medical procedure? Did you know that we are the only developed country in the world to have no law at all?

If you didn’t, don’t feel bad. According to a 2008 survey, 92 percent of Canadians were found not to know that an abortion could be performed during all nine months of pregnancy.

People are talking about “it” and, it seems, want to start a national dialogue if not a full blown discussion or debate. Some make the case that the dialogue has already started or that it has never ended. Others advocate for the status quo and want to shut down all discussion on this topic, lest positions contrary to their own be not only expressed but heard.

The reality is that Canadians who are made aware of the current situation are mighty uncomfortable with it. A 2008 Environics poll found that a majority of Canadians want some legal protections in place for the unborn child. Nearly six out of ten respondents were in favour of some legal protection while only 33 percent support the status quo – no protection for children until after a live birth. Interestingly, it found that more women (33 percent) than men (24 percent) supported protection from the point of conception.

As Canadians, we need to talk intelligently about abortion and debate it as we would any other issue. Why? Because it’s healthy for us and it should be not only permitted, but expected in a free and democratic country.

[Click here to read the whole of the article which the above is an excerpt from.]


From the ARPA Canada website

  Petition to Stop Funding Planned Parenthood

Click on the attached petition (below) to open and print off this worthy call to the government of Canada to stop using our tax dollars to fund abortions internationally. The petition states "WHEREAS: Planned Parenthood is known for promoting destruction of innocent pre-born life and attacking family values; activities that a significant portion of Canadians oppose. Therefore:  We, the undersigned residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to stop all funding of Planned Parenthood by CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). Click here to learn about Planned Parenthood International, their gigantic budget, and their 58,000 facilities worldwide. You can send your petitions to your MP or Brad Trost (contact information on the petition).



Pro-Lifers Released from Jail
(a news release from Campaign Life Coalition BC)



VANCOUVER , BC , June 20, 2009–

Campaign Life Coalition BC has just learned of the release of the two pro-life demonstrators arrested yesterday at the abortion facility near Broadway and Commercial in Vancouver yesterday. After being led away in handcuffs shortly past noon on Friday June 19, 72 year old grandmother Sissy Von Dehn and 58 Year old Donald Spratt, spent 24 hours in the downtown east-side Vancouver jail. They were released shortly after 1 PM today on a promise to appear for a hearing on the charge of alleged breach of the Bubble Zone Sec. 21.b.

Both Von Dehn and Spratt signed an undertaking to remain away from the 2500 block Commercial Drive area and the adjacent alleyways and to appear in BC Provincial Court on Friday July 3 at 2 PM.

Upon her release Sissy Von Dehn commented that she was disappointed with her treatment at the hands of the Vancouver Police Department. At no time during her incarceration was she able to make a hone call. She three times tied to use a phone made available, but it did not work. When she asked about that the officer simply replied “that happens sometimes.” Her family had no way of knowing her status as all inquiries to the police led others to believe she would be making a call. “I guess there is no guarantee of your one phone call after all” she added.

Von Dehn also commented how surprised she was that she had been arrested at all. “Police assured me on two occasions that carrying these same Bubble Zone notice signs was within our rights and in no infringed on the Bubble Zone legislation. It was quite a shock to be hauled off to jail for notifying passersby of a BC law.”

At present we have had no contact with the other person arrested with Von Dehn and will update everyone when we do.

Still Photos of the arrest available.

John Hof, president

Campaign Life Coalition BC

Box 12045 Murrayville PO

Langley , BC    V3A 9J5

Phone: 604-534-4828






 Vancouver Police Arrest Sissy Von Dehn: Informing the Public Regarding the Bubble Zone Law



VANCOUVER, BC, June 18, 2009- At 1:30pm (PST) this afternoon police arrested

a 73-year-old BC resident, Cecilia VonDehn, outside the Everywoman's Health

Care abortion facility in downtown Vancouver who was merely informing

passersby of the law.


The BC Access to Abortion Services Act forbids any counsel against abortion

to be given within 50 meters of an abortion mill. VonDehn, however, was not

breaking that law.  Instead, she was informing people of the existence of

that law, known as bubble zone legislation.


Family and friends have not heard from VonDehn since the arrest.  She is

being held for the night in Canada's notorious Downtown Eastside, in a

holding jail known for being the drunk tank.  It is not known what condition

she herself is in, nor what conditions she is being kept in.


John Hof, of Campaign Life Coalition BC, was at the scene when the arrest

happened.  "It is alarming that police would arrest someone who was simply

stating what the law is," said Hof. "The fact that they're keeping a

grandmother for the night and her family hasn't heard from her is even more

appalling.  The suppression of basic expression in Canada should be cause

for everyone's concern."


This is a developing story.  For more information contact John Hof at

604-351-1684 (c).



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)

Also, please see the article immediately below.

Vancouver Police Arrest Two at Abortion Clinic

[a press release from John Hof, President of Campaign Life Coalition BC]



VANCOUVER, BC, June 18, 2009– At 1:30pm (PST) this afternoon police arrested two BC residents inside the bubble zone outside the Everywoman’s Health Care abortion facility in downtown Vancouver. Donald Spratt, who just received word yesterday from the Supreme Court of Canada that his appeal against a lower court ruling affirming the bubble zone was dismissed, was arrested along with Sissy von Dehn , a local representative of Nurses for Life.

A photographer covering the situation was also handcuffed, had his camera confiscated and was put into the paddy wagon for about twenty minutes before being released.

The BC Access to Abortion Services Act forbids any counsel against abortion to be given within 50 meters of an abortion mill. John Hof , President of Campaign Life Coalition BC was on the scene and informs that those arrested were not counseling against abortion in the bubble zone, but merely informing people of the existence of the bubble zone legislation.

The two arrested carried signs advising passersby of the Bubble Zone and one wore a symbolic piece of tape over his mouth to represent being muzzled by the law. The bubble Zone is not marked in any way so the general public can not possibly know of its existence. “Are they embarrassed and afraid to admit the abortion facility exists?” asked Hof “These two were simply informing the public of the BZ. “For me it would not be a stretch to state that the lack of posting of the BZ information and subsequent arrest of these two could be a form of entrapment” He added.

“This is particularly disconcerting since these same signs have been used inside the BZ before with police attending and no warnings or arrests took place.” Hof said. “Peaceful Pro-lifers have been abiding by suffering under the restriction of this Bubble Zone for more than 14 years. Today’s arrests are a severe escalation by the authorities.” 

The latest word is that both arrested today are still in custody and no word from the police as to their condition.

Pro-lifers had on one other occasion stood within the bubble zone distributing material about the law. On that occasion police had refrained from arresting the individuals, since they were not breaking the law against abortion counseling within the zone.

Developing story …Photos available on request.

With thanks to


John Hof ,  president

Campaign Life Coalition BC

Box 12045 Murrayville PO

Langley , BC    V3A 9J5

Phone: 604-534-4828





 EU tiptoes round Lisbon quicksands

[Note: Ireland assured sovereignty over its anti-abortion policy.]

By Laurence Peter
BBC News, Brussels

EU leaders will breathe a sigh of relief that the Lisbon Treaty will not - for now at least - get them bogged down in institutional wrangling again.

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen appears satisfied that the deal on an EU protocol, as well as a legally binding EU decision, will be enough to reassure Irish voters and deliver a "Yes" to Lisbon in a second referendum. He expects the Republic of Ireland to be ready for the vote in early October.

These EU legal instruments spell out that Lisbon will not affect Irish sovereignty over military neutrality, taxation and anti-abortion policy
 . . . . 
 [To read the whole of this BBC online article --which has only the one sentence referring to abortion-- click here.]


12-Year-Old Pro-Life Prodigy Gives Moving Speech at Canadian March for Life
Video of talk on Parliament Hill also reveals large size of crowd

By Alex Bush

OTTAWA, May 21, 2009 ( – Lia, the twelve-year-old girl who made headlines for presenting a pro-life speech in a school speech competition against tremendous opposition from her teachers earlier this year, gave her exceptional oration to the 12,000 strong crowd at the National March For Life in Ottawa, Canada last week.

Lia, who is from Ontario, adapted her speech for the March for Life slightly, adding, “Every day, 115,000 are being put to death through abortion. 115,000. Look around at this great sea of people. This is only about 10,000 people.  Every two hours, this amount of children are killed because of abortion.”

Lia became a household name in the pro-life world when she was disqualified from a public speaking contest last February.  She gave her speech anyway, while still being disqualified, causing one of the judges to leave the panel before her speech even began.  Controversy among the judges caused them to reverse their earlier decision to disqualify Lia and she ended up winning the contest.

The speech on Parliament Hill was videotaped by Socon Media. The amateur video not only shows Lia giving her speech, but clearly reveals the large size of the crowd, as well as the difficult weather conditions experienced by everyone present for the March for Life. Lia's 8-minute speech was cheered by the pro-life Canadians on the Hill, many of whom were delighted to hear and see this young lady, made internationally famous as a result of the YouTube video of her original speech, which has been viewed 650,000 times so far.

“Almost one third of our generation never made it out of the womb,” Lia said, “all those lives are now gone. All that potential, gone, and all that hope and future, gone.”

Lia rhetorically asked the crowd, “Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk, or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet? Could it be that we only call them humans if they're wanted?”

“Fetuses are definitely human, knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful creator,” Lia said, referencing Psalm 139.

Commenting on the legal vacuum surrounding abortion in Canada, Lia said, to the approval of the crowd, “Some people might say that since there are no laws against abortion in Canada, it doesn't matter any more.  The matter's settled, and it's none of our business.  But if an action is unjust, it should be illegal, and it needs to be our business.”

“I know some people say, 'the mother has the right to abort, after all, her life is dramatically affected by having a baby,' ” she said, “but I'm asking you to think about the child's rights that were never given to it.”  

“No matter what rights the woman has it does not mean we can deny the rights of the fetus,” Lia stated, eliciting cheers. “We must remember that with our rights, and with our choices, comes responsibilities, and we can't take away someone else's rights to avoid our responsibilities.”

Next, Lia spoke out against the startling abortion statistics related to babies with disabilities, saying, “What doesn't make sense to me is that on the one hand, we provide special parking and elevators for the handicapped, we sponsor the Special Olympics, speaking of the joy they are to us and how they inspire us.”  She continued, “But, when we find out that a pregnant woman is carrying one of these very children we counsel her to abort it, not giving the child a second thought.”

Lia also addressed gender targeted abortions, specifically the targeting of women.  She said that “in Bombay, out of 8,000 pregnancy tests which indicated that the baby was female, only one of the babies lived.  As for the rest, the mother exercised her choice.  They were aborted.  Killed.”

Lia then brought up the pro-abortion arguments that invoke the so-called “hard cases” - rape and incest.  She responded, “let's look at the facts, only one percent of abortions are hard-case categories.  This includes rape, incest, and the life of the mother being in danger.  One percent,” Lia emphasized. “That hardly justifies the disturbing volume of abortion that happens these days.”

Lia ended her speech quoting Dr. Seuss's book “Horton Hears a Who,” saying, “even though you can't hear them, or see them at all, a person's a person, no matter how small.”

Related Coverage:

12-Year-Old Stuns Pro-Choice Teacher and School with Pro-Life Presentation

Unborn Child Saved by 12-Year-Old's Popular Pro-Life Presentation


Pro-Abortion Language Blocked at UN Status of Women Meeting
Canadian delegation unchanged under Conservatives - still pushing "reproductive rights," opposing sovereignty

Interim Staff

NEW YORK, NY, April 2, 2009 ( - The 53rd UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was held in New York March 2-13 and representatives from pro-family/ pro-life NGOs, including Canada's Campaign Life Coalition, were present to distribute information to delegations and monitor the negotiations of the "Agreed Upon Conclusion," the outcome document of this annual commission, which this year examined the theme of AIDS/HIV.

Anticipation had been building up and the pro-family/ pro-life forces were gearing up for battle following the election of Barack Obama last fall. Beth Brooke, global vice-chair of public policy, sustainability and stakeholder engagement at Ernst & Young, as well as a member of the U.S. delegation, spoke to a pro-life NGO representative and explained that the American delegation was still awaiting instructions from Washington.

Although Obama has appointed some figureheads in his administration, including well-known pro-aborts Susan Rice as the new U.S. ambassador to the UN and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, many deputies and high-level diplomats have yet to be appointed by the State Department.

During this year's CSW, the U.S. delegation decided on its own to revert to positions from the Bill Clinton era, rather than maintain the positions from the Bush administration, until the chain of command is established and they are advised otherwise. In spite of the lack of instructions to the U.S. mission, it was expected that the U.S. would align itself with Canada, the European Union and other countries pushing for the creation of an international "right" to abortion.

A pro-life/pro-family observer reported that during the closed negotiations, the Canadian delegation opposed a suggestion by Iran and Qatar to incorporate language that would emphasize respect for the sovereignty of nations and for their cultural heritages. The two Persian Gulf countries suggested the addition of the words "with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of each country's people" to an article that spoke of "the equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men."

It is unclear whether the Canadian delegation is acting on the direction of the Conservative government or whether the Harper Conservatives are closely following what is happening at the UN. One observer at the UN noted that there has been little change in the activities and worldview of the Canadian delegation since the Conservatives took power in Ottawa in 2006. During the long reign of Canada's previous Liberal government, Canadian delegations were often lead players in anti-family, anti-life initiatives at the UN. This still appears to be the case.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S and the European Union countries also opposed this pro-sovereignty language.

Along with the E.U., Brazil and a few others, the Canadian delegation worked to incorporate language about sexual and "reproductive" rights in the Agreed Upon Conclusions. Historically, "sexual and reproductive rights" has been interpreted as including abortion.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation hosted a side event during the first week of the CSW. In an opening statement, Swedish Ambassador Lennarth Hjelmaker stated that women should "decide over their own body, sexuality and reproduction." Hakon A. Gulbrandsen, state secretary of Norway, declared that the "IPPF was the single most important partner of Norway." Pro-abortion forces made a concerted effort to tie the HIV/AIDS pandemic to other "sexual and reproductive rights," which would divert funds from treatment of HIV/AIDS and reallocate it to the promotion of abortion and family planning.

Other noteworthy events included a demonstration against the Harper government by Canadian feminist NGOs. NDP MP Nikki Ashton joined the crowd of about 30 protesters.

The pro-family/pro-life coalition was successful in keeping negative language out of the Agreed Upon Conclusions. Many members of the coalition worked double shifts and overnight during the meetings, encouraging and materially supporting friendly delegations, while demonstrating to the opposition that they are ready to push back, even if they no longer have the support of the U.S. delegation.

This article has been republished [by LifeSite News] with permission from the April, 2009 edition of The Interim newspaper. 


University of Calgary Students Plead "Not Guilty" to Charges of Trespassing on Their Own Campus

[Press Release]

From: Stephanie Gray []

Sent: Sunday, yMarch 15, 2009 10:21 PM

To: undisclosed-recipients:






CALGARY, AB, March 16, 2009-U of C students charged with trespassing on

their own campus go to court this morning.  Today at 8:30am, Calgary lawyer

Stephen Jenuth will be entering a "not guilty" plea on behalf of the six

members of Campus Pro-Life (CPL) who have been charged with trespass.


Last November, CPL exhibited a graphic abortion display on campus for the

sixth time.  At several past exhibits, the university acknowledged the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms covered the students' rights to express

themselves; however, in 2008 the U of C administration told the students

they had to change how they exhibited their signs, pointing them inwards so

that passersby could not see the display.  The students refused, arguing

that the demand was akin to telling someone they could speak as long as no

one could hear them.  They then erected their controversial display, facing

outwards, and the university charged them with trespass.


CPL President Leah Hallman maintains the charges are unjust and that she and

her fellow club members are being discriminated against based on their

political and philosophical beliefs, which is contrary to the university's

own policy against discrimination.


"We have asked the university several times which of its by-laws, policies,

regulations or other authority it relies on for censoring our viewpoint, and

have received no answer to date," said Hallman.  "Instead of sticking to

their own principles of conduct, the university is giving into mob rule by

censoring a minority opinion because others may be offended."


Hallman says that Dr. Harvey Weingarten, president of the U of C, has

stated, "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?"  The president's

comment reflects the university's own policy laid out in its Academic

Calendar showing that the University aims "to promote free inquiry and



Students plan to set up the display on campus again next week, March 25 and

26, continuing with their established practise of engaging their fellow

peers in debate each semester.


For further information contact Leah Hallman, 403-808-3412 (cell).


. . . .


Abortion debate draws large crowd

Megan O’Meara  -  Fulcrum Staff


ARTS HALL’S AUDITORIUM in room 026 was filled to capacity on Feb. 27 with students and community members gathering to watch a debate on the morality of abortion co-hosted by Ottawa Students for Life (OSFL) and the Eastern Catholic Chaplaincy of Ottawa.
Rebecca Richmond, president of the pro-life OSFL campus club, was thrilled with the turnout and interest in the event.
“The simple fact that it was held was an achievement, and showed that the abortion debate is still alive and relevant on university campuses and in Canada,” she said. “It also showed that we can have a dialogue on such a controversial and emotionally charged issue in a respectful manner.”
The two-and-a-half-hour event focused on the morality of abortion. Representing the pro-life side of the debate was Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, who argued that abortion is immoral because the unborn should be considered as human as any other living person. Gray, who has previously defended her position in debates against various abortion advocates across the country, explained that the U of O debate highlighted an important issue university students should be concerned with.
“A good number of abortions happen amongst university-aged women, so it’s essential that the issue be opened up and discussed,” she explained. “Abortion really affects all of us ... even if women haven’t directly had abortions, women and men will know ... their mothers, their sisters, their friends who have had abortions, and so in some way we’re all touched by it.”
U of O philosophy professor Andrew Sneddon defended the pro-choice side of the debate, arguing that abortion was permissible because a child does not have a right to his mother’s body. Sneddon was invited to speak by a former student who had heard him discussing abortion in class, and explained that he often discusses the issue with his students.
“I routinely teach this issue in some of my courses where it’s a natural part of the topic,” he explained. “Given that there’s general interest and that a university is a good place for rational discourse and a respectful exchange of ideas, that’s enough … to make this an important thing for university students to at least have a forum to think about it in.”
The Feb. 27 debate was of particular importance for OSFL, as it was successfully held during a time when other post-secondary institutions have limited their students’ ability to address the issue. In February 2008, an abortion debate was cancelled at York University three hours before it was scheduled to begin when the York Student Centre Board of Directors cited equal-rights issues. At other universities, such as the University of Guelph and the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, pro-life clubs have been banned or denied funding by student unions.
“It’s nice to be able to point to cases like this [debate at the U of O] and say it worked; we don’t have to use just York as an example,” said Sneddon. “I think universities’ administrations might have legitimate worries here, but maybe those worries are worth balancing with the likelihood of there being a good debate as opposed to a not so good one.”
Daniel Gilman, OSFL vice-president, expressed the club’s appreciation for their right to express their views on the issue as he wrapped up the event.
“While pro-life clubs and abortion debates have been shut down throughout Canada, our university has proven that respectful and open debate is possible and is taking place on the subjects that are the most controversial.”

[From ]



University pro-life group stripped of club status by student union

Jennifer Hilliker, Metro Calgary
11 February 2009
. . . .
The University of Calgary’s Student’s Union made a decision Tuesday night to strip a campus club of its recognition and funding.   

The decision was provoked by trespassing charges laid to the Campus Pro-Life group earlier this month after its refusal to remove graphic posters comparing genocide to abortion. Club members said they were just exercising their right to free speech.

“They haven’t even provided us with a specific violation that we’ve committed,” said Alanna Campbell, pro-life group treasurer. “We were hoping our Student’s Union would stick up for their student’s rights and freedoms, but they are obviously not going to.”

Campbell confirmed the group would no longer be able to access funding.

The club plans to make an appeal to the Student’s Union within the allotted five days.

Gerald Gall, a law professor at the University of Alberta, said the Student’s Union should have waited for the court case’s verdict on Feb. 27 before making its own.  . . . .

[Click here to read the whole article and see the illustration.]

The article immediately below is from a media release from Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform:
                                                        Angry Abortion Supporters Shut Down Debate .  .  .

  HALIFAX, NS, February 7, 2008-A recently posted Youtube video
 ( shows a
 mob of abortion advocates shouting down a pro-life speaker at Saint
 Mary's  University the evening of February 5.  The protestors disrupted a lecture
 given by Jojo Ruba, co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical
 Reform (CCBR).   While chanting and shouting over Ruba and covering his
 projector, police arrived on scene and threatened the angry mob with
 arrest  if they did not permit the scheduled presentation, hosted by St.
 Mary's pro-life students, to continue.

 The protestors quieted down when the police came, but quickly raised
 their  voices again, especially when Ruba began showing photos of past genocides
 like the Holocaust, and when he showed a video of abortion.

 The presentation was eventually shut down, and it was reported that a
 university representative did so when she heard the protestors were going
 to  be arrested.

 "What looks worse, shutting down a university-approved presentation or
 arresting people who are unlawfully disrupting that presentation?" asked
 Ruba, who said he was appalled the university gave in to mob rule.  " St.
 Mary's should be ashamed of itself for showing students they need only
 scream when they don't like something, rather than dialogue

 Ruba's presentation, titled "Echoes of the Holocaust," caused a stir even
 before it began.  Protesters were outraged over his comparing abortion to
 the Holocaust, a theme frequently espoused by his organization, CCBR.

 CCBR's executive director, Stephanie Gray, explained their philosophy:
 "If  the unborn aren't human, our comparison is wrong.  But if the unborn
 /are/  human, then our comparison is frighteningly accurate.  We're not saying
 the  Holocaust and abortion are identical but we are saying they are
 comparable: innocent human beings denied their personhood status, used
 for  experimentation, treated as objects, legally killed in centres designed
 to  terminate their lives, and disposed of like waste."

 Ruba didn't get to properly make his case for this comparison, however,
 in  the face of the mob.  He said, "These so-called pro-'choice' people don't
 believe in choice at all.  Along with denying the unborn their choice to
 live, they suppressed the audience's choice to hear my presentation.
 They  have shown themselves to be intolerant and hateful."

 About 60 people came to hear the talk, including many pro-choice
 students.    The Youtube video shows Ruba beginning his talk by thanking everyone for
 coming.  He then encouraged those who agreed or disagreed to ask
 questions  at the end.  "I just asked them to raise their hands first," said Ruba.

 Ruba is currently on a speaking tour at university campuses and said that
 in  his eight years of speaking he has never been met with such hostility.
  He has several more presentations scheduled in the Maritimes for next

Obama Revokes Abortion Funding Policy, Will Fund Overseas Abortions with Taxpayer Money

By John Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2009 ( – One day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama has signed an order to lift the Mexico City policy, a Reagan-era policy that prohibits taxpayer funds from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.

Population Action International, a pro-abortion group, praised Obama's decision, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance," said the group. "President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelse, however, strongly criticized Obama's move, saying: "America should respond to women's needs in developing countries with real assistance that also upholds their dignity, not by promoting or paying for abortions.  I am disappointed by President Obama’s decision to bypass the will of American taxpayers and promote the radical agenda of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby."

It was widely anticipated that Obama would sign the executive order yesterday, on the 36th anniversary of Roe. In 1993 former president Bill Clinton had revoked the policy on that day, while George Bush reinstated the policy on his first day in office in 2001, the day before the Roe anniversary.

Instead of signing the order yesterday, however, Obama instead issued a statement defending Roe, while speaking of the need to find “common ground” in the “divisive” and "sensitive" abortion debate.

In yesterday’s statement Obama explained, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.” Nevertheless, he said, “we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”

While the decision not to revoke the policy yesterday was cautiously interpreted by some as evidence that Obama may not be as extreme on abortion as he has promised to be, and would not force taxpayers to pay for abortions, pro-life and pro-abortion organizations did not have to wait long for Obama to prove his solidly pro-abortion credentials.

"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

The Mexico City policy was considered by many to be one of the most effective pro-life policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), one of the most pro-abortion organizations in the world, told the BBC today that under the Bush administration, thanks to the Mexico City Policy, the organisation had lost more than $100m (£73m) in funding.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

Vatican attacks US abortion move

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

Another official said it dealt a blow to groups fighting against "the slaughter of the innocents".

The White House says the move aligns the US with other nations fighting poverty and promoting health care.

On Friday, Mr Obama ended a ban on giving US federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about them.

Robust language

In an interview published in an Italian newspaper on Saturday, senior Vatican official Monsignor Rino Fisichella urged Mr Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."

"If this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment," Mr Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, told the Corriere della Sera. . . . .

The criticism from the Vatican adds to concerns from evangelical Protestant groups that the US decision could presage a wider dismantling of the legal limits of abortion.

Critics of the former funding ban had long argued that it hurt some of the poorest people in the world by denying money to groups that might support abortion, but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care or HIV/Aids. . . . .


Contrary to Mainstream Media, Hundreds of Thousands at Giant Washington March For Life
Nellie Gray says larger number this year a reaction to Obama election

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman and Steve Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2009 ( - Hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators marched through the U.S. capital yesterday, protesting the deaths of almost 50 million unborn children by surgical abortion since the practice was legalized nationwide in 1973.

The March for Life, held on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state laws nationwide, attracted large groups from around the nation, including Catholic dioceses and parishes, organizations of priests and laity, and various pro-family and pro-life organizations.  Well over half of the participants were under thirty years old, including a very high percentage of adolescents.

March for Life chief organizer Nellie Gray told LifeSiteNews the crowd definitely appeared larger than normal this year. She said there were "definitely over 200,000" participants and noted that one television station reported that there were 300,000 participants in the march. Gray also said the march normally takes about one and a half hours to pass one point, but this year it took over two and a half hours, indicating a large increase in numbers.

Asked what she attributed the massive attendance Gray responded, "I don't think there is any doubt that it was in reaction to the election and as they started to see the issues in the news they felt compelled to come out."

Senators, congressmen, pro-life leaders and members of various religious traditions addressed the crowd before the march began. The religious leaders included Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church of America, Cardinals Justin Rigali and Sean O'Malley and numerous Catholic bishops.

Luke Robinson, an African-American pastor from Maryland, stirred the crowd with a passionate speech calling on Obama to end the "slaughter of the innocent preborn," especially blacks, who suffer 34% of abortions in comparison to their 12% representation in the population (see LifeSiteNews coverage at

Although the March's speakers made respectful comments about President Barack Obama, whose administration began two days earlier, they called upon him to abandon his extreme pro-abortion beliefs and policies, and to embrace the right to life for all.

Despite the election of Obama, who most pro-life leaders at the march emphasized to LifeSiteNews is the most pro-abortion president in American history, many participants expressed hope for the future, speculating that the new president might repent of his past and convert.  Others expressed deep concern about the consequences if Obama implements the policies he has espoused during his brief political career, both in the United States and in foreign countries.

Frank Padilla, founder of the international pro-family organization Couples for Christ, spoke to LifeSiteNews about the "global attempt to destroy the family, destroy marriage, and destroy life".  In the Philippines, where the group began, pro-life groups are fighting a "reproductive health" bill that would fund and promote the distribution of contraceptives, including those that cause abortion.

He added that there is "very great concern" about the election of Obama, given the influence of the United States on foreign countries.  However, he added, that he believes "at the same time we see that it is a blessing, because people are now much more aware, and we know that we need to educate our people, because we know there are so many Catholics who really don't know what the issues are about."

"So, that should be the blessing, and I think that this will be the start of greater pro-life activism, and work, not just in our country but in many parts of the world."

Fr. Aquinas Glibo, a Dominican priest, was present with numerous young seminarians, under the banner, "Dominicans for Life."

"I think the pro-life movement in the United States has becoming a rallying point for a lot of young religious," said Fr. Aquinas, who also stated that the Dominican Order is seeing a resurgence of vocations and a stronger spirit of orthodoxy.  He also said that he preaches against abortion in his parish in New York City.

Participants held signs with pro-life slogans, and many sang.  Some held photos of aborted babies.  The Genocide Awareness Project, an organization that shows large photos of aborted children in displays at universities and on roadsides, was present as well, with a chilling display showing the victims of abortion. It also had one of its large Truth trucks along the march route.


Poll Shows 92 Percent of Canadians Unaware that Law Permits Abortion up to Birth

January 12, 2009 ( - An Angus Reid poll has found that a vast majority of Canadians do not know that under the country’s current legal situation the killing of an unborn child is permitted at any time from conception up to the moment of birth.

The poll results have been made public on the heels of a late-December declaration by Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that the Conservative government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate in Canada.

The Angus Reid poll found that 92 percent of the respondents did not know abortion was available to a woman throughout the full nine months of gestation.

Significantly, a June 2008 poll by Angus Reid Strategies found that 46 percent of Canadians approve of the Canadian legal status quo, even if—as the more recent poll shows—they do not actually understand what the status quo is.

The new poll also found that respondents wanted information to be readily available to women contemplating abortion.  Fully 95 percent said all information about all options should be made available to women, and 95 and 96 percent (respectively) said that information about the physical and psychological effects of abortion should be made available.

“Canadian women have a right to know,” said Yvonne Douma, Executive Director of Signal Hill, a human rights organization whose mandate is to provide accurate information to the public on these and other life issues ( 

The poll also found that an overwhelming number of respondents did not support a woman’s right to abort a fetus because of its gender, a practice that is legal in Canada. Only six percent supported a woman’s right to choose abortion when the fetus is an undesired gender, usually female.

“Society recognizes that choice is not an absolute,” said Douma. “Some choices cannot be supported as is evident with gender selection abortions.  But informed consent is vital to making good choices, and we do not see women getting all the information they need when making these life-changing decisions.”

Gibbons freed from custody after judge quashes charge

By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO, January 12, 2009 ( - Pro-life demonstrator Linda Gibbons walked out of court a free woman to the hugs of supporters after a criminal court judge quashed a charge of disobeying a court order against her this afternoon. She had been held in prison since her arrest last Oct. 8 outside the Scott "Clinic" abortion site in downtown Toronto, which is shielded by a legal bubble zone established as part of a "temporary" court injunction implemented in 1994.

The development is the second in a row for Gibbons, who similarly was immediately released from custody last Sept. 30 after a judge found her not guilty of obstructing a peace officer. Today, her lawyer, Daniel Santoro, successfully argued that Gibbons could not be criminally charged with disobeying a court order, since the injunction that shields the Scott site was imposed by a civil court.

Legal arguments took up the whole day, until about 4 p.m. when the judge made his finding and a smiling Gibbons was released. The Crown attorney attempted to argue that the criminal charge was an appropriate one, but the judge concluded that it was "really a simple issue" in quashing the charge.

Noting that the 1994 injunction was a civil proceeding, the judge said, "There are rules for civil matters and there are rules for criminal matters. They're separate and apart … The rules are clear and mutually exclusive."

The latest development presents an interesting conundrum for those who have prosecuted Gibbons over the past 15 years. With judges having successively thrown out charges of obstructing a peace officer and disobeying a court order, the province and Crown attorney's office appear to be left with little option but to launch a civil proceeding against her, if they wish to pursue the matter at all. They have two years from the date of the alleged transgression to do so.

However, a civil proceeding raises the spectre of a challenge to the legality of the injunction itself, which was supposed to be temporary but has now stretched to the unprecedented age of 15 years. Pro-life activists in Toronto will be watching carefully to see what path the authorities choose to follow.

For her part, Gibbons had a few words as she was whisked away to a vehicle for a change of clothes and some nourishment after a long day in court: "The courts need to establish their credibility by acknowledging the rights of every human being, born or unborn."


People are worth even more than kidneys

By Brigitte Pellerin and Andrea MrozekJanuary 3, 2009 

People are kidneys too." It's a new Rod Bruinooge-inspired T-shirt we're considering. Mr. Bruinooge wants us to think about giving as much protection to Canadian babies as we do individual body parts and that, we find, is a New Year's resolution we can get behind.

Mr. Bruinooge, the young, aboriginal Tory MP for Winnipeg South, who recently became chairman of the multi-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, managed to make a name for himself and make the Hill buzz in the few short days between Christmas turkey and New Year's champagne. And all it took was a clever metaphor.

In Canada, he explained, there are many more legal obstacles to selling your kidneys than there are to killing your unborn child. So, he said, "The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney."

It's a brilliant line. We wish we'd thought of it ourselves. We actually do live in a society that cares more about what you do with your spare parts than what you do with an entire, if tiny, human being. And every time someone tries to talk about the issue of abortion, feminists and their allies (very much including Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and most of the Tory cabinet) shut down the debate to protect a woman's "right to choose." . . .     [Go to the Ottawa Citizen online to read the rest of the article.]

Brigitte Pellerin and Andrea Mrozek are founding members of

Why I am pro-life

Rod Bruinooge, National Post  Published: Monday, December 29, 2008

I think it is essential for a society to value its unborn citizens. The importance we give our offspring prebirth affects the importance we place on them post-birth.

In Canada in 2008, our citizens have no legal value while in the wombs of their mothers. We are completely alone in the world in this regard.

Most Canadians would agree that you should not be able to remove your kidney and sell it on eBay to the highest bidder. Although it's your body and your kidney, this would not only be a poor bioethical choice, but it is in fact illegal under our laws.

Most Canadians would also agree that an unborn child in the ninth month of gestation, moments away from delivery, should not be eligible for an elective abortion. However, regardless of the fact that this would be an extremely poor bioethical choice, it is in fact legal. As such, Canada has far greater protections for human kidneys than we do for human fetuses.

By assigning no legal worth to our unborn children, we set the stage for a society that continues to lose out on natural community growth. The study of demographics in our country speaks clearly on this topic, and the numbers are stark. Is there a correlation between our nation's collapsing birth rate and our legal and social devaluation of the unborn? Of course there is.

Obviously, the greater number of terminated pregnancies there are the greater the population decline. And more subtly, by valuing a kidney more than an unborn human, we are educating our citizens to believe that there is little importance in enhancing the growth of the next generation of Canadians.

This mindset is not sustainable, nor is it psychologically healthy. Can it be changed in the short term? And will Canada be open to revisiting our views on the status of the unborn?

Beng aboriginal and having grown up in post-Morgentaler Canada, I find I enter this public discourse with a context that I hope will be beneficial to the multi-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, which I now chair. I believe Canada's indigenous people have a unique perspective on many subjects including the unborn. My aboriginal elders have taught me that the cycle of life honours both birth and death, and respect for the unborn is a foundation of this philosophy.

I have no choice but to advocate for the unborn and seek to have their value restored in my Canada. Our collective future depends on it.

 - Rod Bruinooge is the Conservative MP for the riding of Winnipeg South. He was recently elected chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.


Pro-Life Speech Under Siege on Canadian Campuses


Columbus, OH – December 3, 2008 –The Center for Bio Ethical Reform’s Canadian affiliate has been under attack for several years for displaying truthful images of abortion. Recently, at the University of Calgary, officials threatened arrest if university students displayed the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).  The university administration put unacceptable restrictions on the pro-life student’s free speech rights and threatened arrest if they violated them. The university wanted the student group to face the signs inward so passersby would not see them. The students stood resolute in demanding the university protect their rights to free expression. The administration blinked and the students displayed GAP. However, the battle is far from over.


Thank God for these students would have the courage to risk their college careers to defend the babies and the right to free expression. This should be a lesson to Americans who take our rights for granted.  When the history of the pro-life movement is written these courageous students and others around the world that risk arrest everyday will be exalted for their courage.


Click here to send a note of encouragement to Campus Pro-Life or email


Archived articles:


For more information contact Mark Harrington at 614-759-5195 or

Mark Harrington is the Executive Director of CBR Midwest, and President of Pro-Life Institute


A pro-life free-speech heroine walks free

Nigel Hannaford

Calgary Herald

Saturday, October 04, 2008

 This could be a free speech story, or a pro-life story, or just a story about plain old perseverance. You decide.

Earlier this year, abortion provider Henry Morgentaler got his Order of Canada.

A lot of people hated the idea, but whether or not one approves of what he was doing -- full disclosure, I do not -- one has to concede he believed in it strongly enough to go to jail, rather than yield. If you agree with him, he's a brave man.

If you don't agree with him, you should still allow he has the courage of his convictions, and this martyr factor is part of what makes him so appealing to his supporters.

What then shall we say of pro-life activist Linda Gibbons, who has spent 75 months of the last 14 years in jail for protesting Morgentaler's trade? After all, it's a mirror image. When abortion was against the law, one man challenged it and in the end, was acclaimed for it.

Then the law changed. Not only did abortion on demand become legal, it also became illegal in many places to stand outside clinics where they were done, to say, "this is wrong." In Toronto, it became illegal to stand near the door, whether you said anything or not.

Responding to this obvious limitation of free-speech rights, pro-lifers refer to these bubble zones as speech-free zones.

But, Gibbons was just as sure abortion was wrong, as Morgentaler was that it was right.

So she kept showing up, being arrested, going to jail, and because she wouldn't promise not to go back to her spot on the sidewalk, stayed there for years. . . . .

As on other occasions, she was charged with obstructing a peace officer.

This past Tuesday though, and unlike former occasions, she was acquitted. A Toronto provincial court judge decided her non-violence and non-resistance could not be construed as obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his duties.

The judge added that a charge of disobeying a court order might have stuck, but as that wasn't the charge, home she went. That's an interesting development by the way: Should she be so charged, she could have a jury trial.

Who knows what 12 of her peers might make of it? After all, even if they're not pro-lifers, they would have to consider some of the ironies here.

There's the free speech aspect, for instance.

If she was a union militant involved in a strike, she could be as shrill as she liked.

In this country, police stand back while truckers get their windows smashed. So what exactly is the problem if she quietly approaches a woman heading to an abortion clinic? Ah, says the other side, nobody should interfere with another's health care.

True. But the woman is pregnant, not sick. Given the bloody reality of abortion, asking somebody if they really know what they're up to seems fair.

In fact, it should be the law. In a piece he wrote about Gibbons several years ago, columnist Michael Coren spoke of meeting a woman with a beautiful little girl, who Gibbons had talked out of an abortion right at the clinic. That three-year-old sweetie owes her life to one thing, that Linda Gibbons spoke to her mother.

Then there's the penalty.

Whenever the peaceable Gibbons was sentenced, she'd get six months. Then, she'd end up in a cell with a woman doing half that for a violent assault.

How smart is that? Or just? Gibbons then, as much as Morgentaler, has the courage of her convictions. The difference between her courage and Morgentaler's though, is that he was swimming with a changing tide that would sweep him ashore.

She is not. That she goes on, without the comfort of a cheering section in press and Parliament, says a lot about her faith.

As occasional Herald contributor Andrea Mrozek puts it, for all the pro-choice fear mongering about pro-lifers wanting to send women to jail, there's only one woman in jail in this country on this issue -- and it's because she's pro-life.

Well, for now she's out. I don't know her, but I think I like Linda Gibbons. Talk about sticking to your guns: 14 years, no less.

No Order of Canada for her, of course. They're just for people who swim in the right direction.

But, whether as a pro-lifer, or a free-speecher, she deserves one.

[The complete article was found in the Calgary Herald online.]


 Cardinal Archbishop of Montréal: "I Am Returning my Order of Canada Insignia"

MONTREAL, September 11, 2008 ( - The Archbishop of Montreal, Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, has just announced that he is returning his Order of Canada Insignia in protest over the Morgentaler decision.

Cardinal Turcotte's statement is as follows:

"On May 9th 1996, the office of the Governor-General of the time, Mr. Roméo Leblanc, announced that I had been named to the Order of Canada. I had accepted this honour on behalf of all those who, because of their faith in Jesus Christ, work in the social domain to serve the most disadvantaged of our society.

"I have the greatest respect for the Order of Canada. It is meant to recognize the contribution of persons who help to bring about the progress of our society and who are concerned about the future of our world. Until recently, I sincerely believed that the Order of Canada was bestowed upon persons about whom there was a consensus.

"I was away when the Governor-General, Madame Michaelle Jean, announced the nomination of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. This announcement generated a great deal of criticism on the part of those who do not share Dr. Morgentaler's views regarding the respect for human life.

"I must admit that I had hoped that, in light of the large number of protests, the Consultative Council for the Order of Canada would revise its decision. Because it has not done so up to now and because silence on my part might be misinterpreted, I feel obliged in conscience to reaffirm my convictions regarding the respect for human life, from conception to death. We are not the masters of human life; it rests in the hands of God.

"As a result, I wish to declare that I am renouncing the title of Officer of the Order of Canada, bestowed upon me in 1996, and that I am returning the insignia that was given to me."


Canadian Doctors Group Worried Palin Example Could Pressure Some Women to Not Abort Down's Child

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

TORONTO, September 10, 2008 ( - U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's loving and highly-publicized acceptance of her Down's syndrome child Trig has some Canadian doctors worried that her example may lead to mothers shunning abortion after diagnosis of Down's syndrome.

According to the Globe and Mail, Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin's decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to.   

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.

Citing his concern for women's "freedom to choose", Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe.

However, Lalonde said that doctors in Canada give balanced information about the consequences of the condition to pregnant women with a Down's child, and that women are not necessarily encouraged to abort. "We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible," Lalonde said. "We're coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions."

Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, however, disagreed with Lalonde'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."

The statistics for abortion amongst Down's children in Canada are stark: according to some estimates 80-90% of Canadian children with Down's syndrome are aborted.

"It's very dark," Flint said in the Globe and Mail report. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden . . . it places on children and a marriage."

"They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome. That's why Mrs. Palin has become an example that could possibly stem the tide of families who abort fetuses after a positive determination for Down syndrome," Ms. Flint said.

"We know overwhelmingly the message families get is 'Don't have this baby, it will ruin your life,' and I don't think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life," Ms. Flint said. "Regardless of politics, I think it's a good example."

According to Physicians for Life between 84 percent and 91 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted in the U.S. While this figure is similar in Canada, it is even higher in England and Spain where 94 percent and 95 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are aborted.


Canadian Pro-life Hero Linda Gibbons' Trial Commences
Lawyer contends obstruction charge not applicable and an abuse of process by Crown attorney's office

By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO, September 11, 2008 ( - Linda Gibbons's lawyer put forth a unique argument during the first day of her Provincial Court trial on a charge of obstructing a peace officer in connection with events outside the Scott "Clinic" abortuary in downtown Toronto last July 31.

The diminutive grandmother has spent several of her past 14 years in prison because of peaceful and prayerful demonstrations outside specified Toronto abortuaries that are protected against pro-life demonstrations by a "temporary" 1994 court injunction.

The pro-life movement has charged that the continuous practice of police and Crown attorneys charging Gibbons and others with obstructing a peace officer, instead of the appropriate charges of disobeying a court order or contempt of court, is a politically motivated tactic aimed at denying pro-life activists a jury trial, as well as the opportunity to constitutionally challenge the validity of the court order.

On Wednesday at downtown Toronto's College Park courthouse, lawyer Daniel Santoro argued that the charge of "obstructing a peace officer" is not valid in connection with the July 31 matter, because Gibbons in no way hindered the official duties of sheriff and police personnel, as is specified in the Criminal Code definition of the charge.

Santoro cross-examined sheriff David Usher, who - as he has numerous times in the past - took the stand to testify against Gibbons. Usher once again referred to abortuary manager Maria Corsillo as simply "Maria," hinting at the apparently close relationship law enforcement authorities have with abortuary staff.

Testimony during the hearing indicated that two sheriff's office personnel, two police officers and one police sergeant attended at the Scott Clinic on July 31. In addition, Crown attorney Adrienne Samberg was assisted by one person in court. Pro-life observers in the courtroom marvelled at the huge expenditure of legal and police resources being used to prosecute a gentle grandmother staging a quiet demonstration.

Usher agreed with Santoro's suggestions that Gibbons's demonstration was a peaceful one, that she accepted a written copy of the injunction, that she went with officers peacefully when arrested, that she did not interfere with any of his duties and that she did not physically hinder him.

In contradiction of Usher's testimony, Toronto Police Service Constable Joseph Jaksa said on the witness stand afterwards that Gibbons "got into people's way" and stepped in front of them, blocking their path, while conducting her demonstration. He also mistakenly claimed Gibbons was mentioned by name in the injunction.

Santoro pointed out that Jaksa's notes made no mention of the officer's stated claims that Gibbons blocked people or prevented them from coming and going outside the abortuary. He also had Jaksa concede that Gibbons was "very co-operative" with the arrest he conducted on her.

Prior to final submissions, Santoro attempted to have the charge thrown out on the basis that the Crown had not adequately proven the Scott Clinic to be open at the time of the alleged offence, as is required by the text of the injunction. However, the presiding judge, Justice Clements, rejected the application.

In his final submissions, Santoro argued that simply breaking a court order is not enough of an action to constitute obstructing a peace officer. "Obstruction is, rather, a hindrance," he said. "The officers were allowed by Miss Gibbons to perform their duties unobstructed." He added that the obstruction charge is intended to refer to law enforcement personnel when they are conducting an investigation.

Santoro offered several examples of case law to back his point, including a book by a prominent judge that makes no mention of obstruction charges in relation to court injunctions.

Santoro then concluded with another gambit - a motion to stay the proceedings on the basis that there has been an abuse of process by the Crown attorney's office. The "temporary" injunction was intended to be just that, temporary, he said. The Crown's neglect in proceeding to take the matter to trial during the past 14 years has resulted in its now being able to exploit that fact by prosecuting Gibbons, he said.

As the day drew to a close, Justice Clements ruled that the matter would have to be heard another day. He said he would hear the motion before issuing a verdict and then adjourned the case to Tuesday, Sept. 23 at 10 a.m. in Room 504 of the College Park courthouse.


Lutherans denounce Morgentaler recognition
July 2, 2008

[From ]

WINNIPEG—In a strongly worded statement, Rev. Dr. Ralph Mayan, president of Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC) called awarding the country's highest honour, the Order of Canada, to Dr. Henry Morgentaler an "insult to Canada and all who respect the sanctity of life."

He noted that the country presented the same award to Senator Romeo D'Allaire for his efforts to save the lives of thousands in Rwanda amidst a genocide but noted ironically that "the one whose life's work has resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of unborn children is given the same recognition."

Revoking an Order of Canada award is not without precedent. Hockey entrepreneur Alan Eagleson's award was revoked and currently there is talk of the same action for Conrad Black. "Dr. Morgentaler has not yet received the award, and so we believe the committee responsible should reconsider its decision," President Mayan added.

The president also noted that the Order of Canada recognizes and celebrates "those whose exemplary efforts reflect the value of life for Canadians and peoples of the world."

Lutheran Church–Canada holds a strong pro-life position based on the teachings of the Bible. In 2002 it encouraged the formation of a Lutheran-based agency to provide information on life issues to LCC congregations. So far, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has refused to grant the organization non-profit charitable status.

Winnipeg-based Lutheran Church–Canada was established in 1988 and has almost 320 congregations from Nova Scotia to B.C. and more than 75,000 members.

A statement on awarding the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler from Rev. Dr. Ralph Mayan, president of Lutheran Church–Canada
July 2, 2008

[From ]

"Awarding the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler whose actions in the name of 'health' and 'choice' are responsible for the slaughter of more than 100,000 unborn children each year is an insult to Canada and all who respect the sanctity of life.

"It is a sad irony that the Order of Canada was presented to Senator Romeo D'Allaire for his noble work in preventing the deaths of some 20,000 people in Rwanda amidst a genocide of more than a million, yet the one whose life's work has resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of unborn children is given the same recognition.

"We believe all life is a gift from God and as a country our citizens should recognize and celebrate those whose exemplary efforts reflect the value of life for Canadians and peoples of the world."


Press Release [from Canada Family Action Coalition]
Toronto, ON

July 3, 2008

For Immediate Release

Formal Request Filed to Terminate

Henry Morgentaler’s Appointment to the Order of Canada

On behalf of the 41,000 members of Canada Family Action Coalition and the hundreds of thousands of like-minded Canadians, on July 3rd, 2008 CFAC filed a formal request in accordance with the Paragraph 25(c) of the Constitution of the Order of Canada for the Advisory Council to recommend that the Governor General terminate Henry Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada.

Dr. Charles McVety, CFAC President says “Henry Morgentaler’s conduct is unbecoming a member of the Order of Canada, violating paragraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Constitution of the Order of Canada, thereby tarnishing all recipeints of this tremendous award.”

For nineteen years, 1969 to 1988, Dr. Morgentaler’s admittedly violated Canadian law. His conduct constituted a significant departure from generally recognized standards of public behaviour violating regulation 3 (b) (i) . In 1976, Dr. Morgentaler was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec, suspended his medical license for one year, violating regulation 3 (b),(ii).

Also according to reports, it appears that the Advisory Council violated long standing protocol requiring unanimous consent approving a nominee by resorting to a mere majority vote.

“With such manipulation of the system we question if the Advisory Council Chair, Justice Beverly McLachlin’s well-known “unwritten constitutional principles” subverted accepted Council procedures. The integrity of the Order of Canada has been undermined as it has become a political award administered by a judicial activist”, said Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director of Canada Family Action Coalition.

CFAC also calls upon Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain how the Government’s Privy Council Secretary, Deputy Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade voted.


For further information, contact Charles McVety at 416.456.0096 or Brian Rushfeldt at 403.295.2159


Morgentaler to be Held Up as an Inspiration to Young People by Virtue of His Being Made a Member of the Order of Canada

Already Henri Morgentaler is in effect being held up as an example to the youth of Canada.  On a webpage of the Governor General's website a forum question is asked:  "Which member of the Order inspires you most and why?"
Already some have chosen Morgentaler.  On the other hand, there are some responses that indicate outrage at his recieving the reward.  The question of the award to Morgentaler is discussed on the "Mentorship" forum at     .
Unfortunately, it does not seem possible to post to this forum any more.  (July 6, 2008)

Opposition to Morgentaler's Order is wide and deep and intense

Kelly MacParland, National Post  online (Posted: July 03, 2008)
At a press conference following his naming to the Order of Canada. Dr. Henry Morgentaler acknowledged there were those who questioned his suitability for the honour, but quickly dismissed them in a line: 
"The negative opinions all come from the usual suspects: the Catholic Church, fundamentalists, women opposed to women's rights."

I've been thinking about that statement for some time, trying to figure out what it is about it that's so disquieting.
Maybe it's because I'm none of those things. I'm just a middleclass Canadian who thinks it's wrong to take life away from innocents who are incapable of speaking or acting for themselves. Nobody who works at the Natonal Post is likely to be accused of adhering to the cult of victimhood. But we're not completely heartless, and is there a greater definition of a victim than a child, still in the womb, wholly dependent on its mother to live and on the legal system to protect it?
In Canada we guarantee neither of those protections. There is no law whatsoever on abortion, and women are assured it is wholly their right to make the decision on life and death, singly and unilaterally, without interference of any kind pertaining to the right of the being that is to die. No judge in the country has the authority to render so final and absolute a verdict. We're a society that purports to care deeply about injustice, and goes to great length to assist those treated unjustly both at home and abroad, yet cares nothing at all for those who haven't quite made it to the delivery room. It's like introducing the world's most lenient refugee and immigration program, but only for people able to physically reach our shores: if they get machine-gunned a mile offshore, it's not our problem.

But that's not what this is about. It's about that statement
Morgentaler made. It says so much about him, in such few words.
For one thing it's not even remotely true. The opposition to Morgentaler's being named to Canada's highest award is wide and deep and intense. It's pretty safe to say there are people who oppose abortion in every corner of Canadian society, whatever their religion, whatever their sex, no matter how fervent their values. It's boggling that Morgentaler could blithely claim anyone who disagrees must be limited to so small and distinct a set of enemies. If he believes it, he's a fool.
But perhaps he was just grandstanding on his day of triumph. If so, it doesn't diminish the offensiveness of what he has to say. This comparison is made frequently these days, but if the words "Catholic Church" had been replaced in his statement with the worlds "the Jews" or "the Muslims," I'm pretty sure the resulting backlash would have been immediate, fierce, and considered justified. During the broadcast of the recent U.S. Open golf tournament, analyst Johnny Miller joked that underdog Rocco Mediate  "looks like the guy who cleans Tiger's swimming pool," adding: "Guys with the name 'Rocco' don't get on the trophy, do they?" He immediately heard from outraged Italians and was forced to make a public apology. In the U.S. a mild remark about Italians is unacceptable; in Canada it's fine to treat the religious values of 43% of the population with derision.
I get the feeling Dr. Morgentaler has a selective respect for the rights of others. The rights of women who agree with his views are paramount. The rights of unborn children are non-existent. The beliefs of women who disagree with him are to be dismissed; any religion which advocates against his views is to be disregarded; the qualms of those Canadians appalled at the carnage that has flowed from his work are to be ignored. I suspect -— and I'm just guessing -— that what's important to Dr. Morgentaler is his beliefs alone. Others' beliefs are inconsequential. Maybe this callousness is what lets him so easily take life away from so many.
Here's somone whose life's achievement is in enabling women to abort their children and justify it to themselves as something other than what it appears to be. One or two other people in history have deliberately set in motion the mass termination of so many helpless lives, but outside of war they aren't treated with high regard. Certainly I don't think they'd qualify for the Order of Canada.

Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post
Photo: Dr. Henry Morgentaler/National Post 

July 1, 2008
Statement from the President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:
Re: Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Abortion and the Order of Canada 

EFC public statement sent to the National Post on July 1. An edited version was published July 3, 2008.

In awarding Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada, an honour has been bestowed upon someone who participates in, promotes and, for many, symbolizes the moral tragedy of abortion. It is a reminder of the shameful reality that Canada is one of the few countries in the world without laws protecting the most vulnerable among us — unborn children. This vacuum is not the result of consensus. This is not about health care but a lack of political leadership to reasonably address the full breadth of the issue.

For the millions of Canadians who celebrate the gift of life and the dignity of the human person at all stages of life, this is a very sad day.

By giving this award, the narrow interests of some and the misguided judgment of others have diminished Canada’s highest civilian honour. Knowing the controversial nature of this act, the process and the timing have discredited the institution. Rather than a day of celebration of what we share as Canadians, Canada Day 2008 has become a day of great sorrow for many that Canada would honour one rather than lament the loss of hundreds of thousands taken in the womb.

May this tragic decision serve to reinvigorate people of good will and cause us all to renew our commitment to champion the protection of all human life, to plead for the voiceless, and to care for the vulnerable amongst us.

Bruce J. Clemenger, President
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Canada's Catholic Bishops United in Opposition to Order of Canada Being Awarded to Morgentaler
Bishop Wingle - "You, Madame Governor General, are sworn to uphold the law of this nation, not to applaud those who flaunt it."
By Tim Waggoner

OTTAWA, ON, July 4, 2008 ( - Canada's Catholic bishops have followed the lead of Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto by taking a unified stance against the Canada Day decision to promote the nation's most prolific killer of the unborn, Henry Morgentaler, to the Order of Canada.  Many of Canada's bishops have not only released statements on the "travesty," but have requested Prime Minister Harper and the Governor General to revoke the award.

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa criticized the divisive nature of the decision and affirmed the duty of all Catholics to defend life at all stages.

"As a Canadian, I am saddened to learn that Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada," said the Archbishop. "As Catholic Christians, we must affirm and defend the gift of life from the moment of conception to natural death. No one, in any circumstance, can claim the right to destroy an innocent human being. Anyone who devotes their energies to promoting abortion is a source of division on the most fundamental questions of life in society. Awarding the Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler can only be a matter of disunity, offending many Canadians of conscience."

Bishop James Wingle of St. Catharines wrote letters of protest to the Governor General and the Prime Minister and is preparing a pastoral letter on the matter for this Sunday.

"For you, as Governor General of Canada, to bestow on a man who has violated systematically and egregiously the deepest foundation upon which all human rights and freedoms stand, the sacred right of human life and the freedom to enjoy it, would be a complete travesty," wrote Bishop Wingle. "In addition to Dr. Morgentaler's vicious and public attack on the lives of thousands of innocent children in their mothers' wombs, he has flaunted the rule of law in Canada and incited others to do likewise. You, Madame Governor General, are sworn to uphold the law of this nation, not to applaud those who flaunt it."

"Your urgent attention to this matter is respectfully demanded," he concluded.

In the letter addressed to PM Harper, the bishop said he recognizes that the PM is not involved in the choice of who is appointed to the Order of Canada, but nevertheless invoked Harper to "intervene personally and immediately" because the "values at stake are of such magnitude."

The Calgary Sun reported that Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has also questioned the divisive choice made by those who appointed Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.

"It's a can you cause such division when we're supposed to be bringing Canadians together and celebrating Canadian identity - so many recipients who have done so many great things are getting lost in all this," he said.

"This debases the award - you're not going to have the same prestige given it," affirmed Bishop Henry.

The bishop then invoked politicians who have continually dodged the abortion issue to start pushing for the implementation of abortion law in Canada.

"So many politicians are disassociating themselves from this...stop fobbing it off to the Supreme Court justices," said Bishop Henry.

Canada's national Catholic magazine, Catholic Insight, joined the chorus of those condemning the naming of Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. Editor Father Alphonse de Valk characterized the appointment as a national disgrace.

Archbishop Richard Smith of Edmonton, who has also written the Governor General asking for the reversal of the decision, released a statement condemning Morgentaler's being named to the Order:

"The decision to award the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler devalues the significance of this honour and offends all Canadians who recognize and treasure the precious gift of human life in the womb. The Order of Canada is one of our country's highest awards. It should not be awarded to one whose work results in the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. The decision should be reversed."

Bishop Ronald Fabbro of London joined his voice with the millions of Canadians who desire that the decision be reversed.

"I join Catholics across Canada, as well as many other Canadians who respect the value of every human life, in urging the Governor General to revoke this decision,'' he said.

"We believe in the dignity of every human person and affirm that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception until natural death,'' explained Fabbro.

The bishop wondered what Morgentaler was being honoured for: "Through his efforts, hundreds of thousands of unborn children have been killed,'' he said. "How can we celebrate this carnage by honouring its author?''
Reports confirm that Bishop Nicola De Angelis has sent out notices on the Morgentaler decision to all parishes in his Peterborough diocese.

"Far from improving our country, Dr. Morgentaler's actions continue to create controversy and division in our nation. In the name of freedom of choice, he has encouraged the development of a culture of death and has thus attacked the most vulnerable, the unborn," stated the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) in a press release.

The CCCB said that it feels the Order itself has been debased by Morgentaler's inclusion in it, stating, "Awarding such a decoration in this context discredits the Order of Canada. It amounts to an inadmissible affront to the numerous Canadians who dedicate their lives to the protection of the most vulnerable, especially the unborn."

"We ask the appropriate authorities to reconsider this nomination and not to award this distinction to Dr. Morgentaler," concluded the statement.

For Archbishop Collin's Statements on the issue please see:
Archbishop Calls All Catholics to Demand National Award to Abortion Doc be Revoked

Morgentaler is no hero -- women who don't abort are

by Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald
Friday, July 04, 2008

 When I think of a hero, Dr. Henry Morgentaler does not spring to mind. "Hero" is the wrong appellation to stick on him.

Terry Fox, hop-skipping his way down the Trans-Canada Highway, in that long-ago summer of 1980, is a hero. Even the dog that barks to alert its sleeping owner to a fire is more of a hero than Morgentaler is. You see, heroes save and enhance lives -- they don't destroy them. Yet, this country's most distinguished award, the Order of Canada, has gone to a "hero" whose sole "achievement" is killi ng unborn Canadian citizens.

The pro-choice faction, having won its appalling campaign to politicize and devalue the Order of Canada, is declaring Morgentaler a hero to millions. Activist Judy Rebick said "most women" see this as a victory. But who elected her to speak for "most" women? I don't remember being given a ballot.

Now that the pro-choice forces have bullied and manipulated their way to this shameful day, Rebick has also proclaimed the abortion debate to be over. Hang on to your empty victory, Judy -- those opposed will continue to write and speak out against this evil. We can do no less.

The melodramatic mantle of heroism that the pro-choice side drapes about Morgentaler's shoulders is intolerably phoney. Heroes rescue people. Morgentaler, who has helped make it open season on the unborn, has rescued no one and condemned thousands.

He has not saved women whose lives would be jeopardized by giving birth, for modern medicine can successfully manage high-risk pregnancies. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports that the 1997-2000 maternal mortality rate for Canada was 6.1 deaths for every 100,000 live births. These women were pregnant by choice, but died from some emergency that arose at the end; they were not "forced" to have babies against their will because abortion was unavailable.

Morgentaler is not rescuing women from lives of dire poverty into which, according to the pro-choice faction, they will automatically descend unless their babies are killed. Fifty-three per cent of abortions in 2004 were performed on women in their 20s. This demographic tends to be employed. Teenage girls, who are most likely to end up in poverty due to pregnancy, accounted for less than 14 per cent of abortions, according to Statistics Canada.

Pro-choicers seem to think that giving up an unwanted baby for adoption also plunges women into poverty. Otherwise, why wouldn't they advocate instead for the income-neutral option of adoption? Why the insistence on death?

Here's the other tiresome canard they trot out -- that unwanted babies should be aborted because their lives will be hell with the mothers who didn't want them. Then, they demand to know why pro-lifers don't step up to the plate and adopt these children. Perhaps they should put aside the empty rhetoric and check the facts. According to, there is a waiting list of Albertans who want to adopt an infant and "very few healthy infants are available." Demand has always outstripped supply.

Nor is Morgentaler rescuing the more than 100,000 women a year who have abortions in Canada, from giving birth to the child of a rape or incestuous relationship. American Family Physician says only five per cent of rapes result in pregnancies.

According to a report from the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute, women going back for their second, third or higher abortion are twice as likely to be over 30. That means they're well-established in their jobs and adult lives, and they're aborting purely for convenience.

In 2004, 30 per cent of abortions in Canada were repeat ones. These women are callously using abortion as birth control.

It's no heroic gesture to offer abortions to the inconvenienced and the irresponsible, although it may certainly swell one's bank statement to heroic proportions -- Morgentaler's revenue has been estimated at $11 million annually.

No -- the real heroes will never get an Order of Canada. They're the unsung women who, finding themselves with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, take responsibility for their actions, and either alter their plans to include a baby in their lives or give the baby up for adoption. They're true heroes because they understand that there is a profound difference between life -- and mere lifestyle.



Abortion Numbers in England and Wales Break Records Again

By Hilary White

LONDON, June 19, 2008 ( - Abortions are at record numbers again in Britain, with a 4 percent rise and ever younger girls having "terminations" instead of giving birth. Statistics released today show that 205,598 British children were killed before birth in 2007, up from 201,173 in England and Wales during 2006.

The number of abortions among young girls also jumped significantly, with 13-to-15 year olds aborting at 4.4 per thousand, and under-18s aborting at a rate of 19.8 per thousand.

These statistics mean that nearly one-quarter of pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion.

Meanwhile, pro-abortion MPs are pushing for still greater relaxation of the rules, to allow midwives and nurses to abort children and to abolish the requirement for two doctors to sign for permission. Changes to the Abortion Act 1967 could be pushed through as amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. A few weeks ago, MPs voted down efforts to reduce the legal gestational age limit for abortion from its current 24 weeks to 20 or less.

The Telegraph quoted Ian Lucas, co-ordinator of the Passion 4 Life campaign, a project of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group, saying, "If there is any more liberalisation of the law it is likely the numbers will go up again, which would be a complete tragedy."

John Smeaton, the national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said, "The figures reflect the Department of Health's policy of performing an abortion as quickly as possible on any woman enquiring."

Smeaton said that the Department of Health puts pressure on doctors who are reluctant to refer for abortion, creating a "conveyor belt" effect where women are simply processed through upon request.

"Many GPs," he said, "would refuse to refer women for abortions on medical grounds, or for religious or conscientious reasons. The DH brooks none of these objections, but insists that every woman who enquires about abortion is immediately referred for abortion."

"There is no counselling routinely offered, and the DH has targets for rushing women through the abortion mill against the clock. Health trusts which miss the target and don't kill enough babies quickly enough are liable to be penalised."

"Abortion is more than a social malaise. It is a grave abuse of human rights. It harms women and kills children."

Read related coverage:

Nearly 200,000 Abortions a Year "Not a Problem" for UK's Biggest Abortion Advocate

UK Committee Recommends RU-486 and Scrapping Two Doctor Requirement for Abortion


Obama's Abortion Bombshell: 
Unrestricted Abortion Over Wishes of Individual States a Priority for Presidency

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2008 ( - Barack Obama, the presumptive pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him topple Hillary Clinton from her throne by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president.

In light of Obama's recently achieved status as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink has decided to remind its supporters that almost one year has passed since Obama made his vows to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion would be the first priority of his administration.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript:

"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."

Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc.

Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act.

"Thirty-five years after Roe, abortion supporters, like Senator Obama, are dismayed that abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not been submissively accepted by the American public," states Denise M. Burke, vice president of Americans United for Life.

"Rather than confronting legitimate issues concerning the availability and safety of abortion, they choose to blatantly ignore the concerns and interests of everyday Americans, as well as the growing evidence that abortion hurts women."

Hillary Clinton, once the longtime Democratic front-runner and anticipated abortion president, conceded defeat last Saturday to Obama, who captured the nomination from her after a long and bitter campaign.

Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, who broke from the ranks of other radical feminist leaders earlier this year to endorse Obama, saying Obama, not Clinton, would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion.

See related links:

Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript):

Video footage of Obama's speech can be obtained here:

Senate version of FOCA:

House version of FOCA:


Gender doesn't trump humanity

Richard Bastien, Citizen Special

Published: Monday, April 21, 2008

Two well-known representatives of Canada's liberal elite, Ujjal and Raminder Dosanjh, recently argued in the Citizen ("In defence of baby girls," April 11) that abortion based on sex selection is a morally reprehensible practice that, unfortunately, is becoming more widespread as a result of the marketing of gender ID kits, which enable women to find out the sex of their baby at an early stage of pregnancy.

While arguing that abortion based on sex selection is nothing less than "female feticide," which is "a practice rooted in misogyny," the two authors note emphatically that they "firmly support a woman's right to choose as paramount." What is thus implied is that aborting a baby on account of gender is repugnant, but doing so on any other ground is legitimate.

This represents a major breakaway from Canadian conventional wisdom on abortion, which holds that all abortions should be deemed legitimate. Indeed, over the past quarter century, it has been taken for granted that abortion is a procedure over which no one should pass judgment. To question a woman's right to unfettered access to abortion is generally viewed as the epitome of political incorrectness. Canada's Supreme Court has even gone so far as to declare that a baby is entitled to legal protection only once he is completely out of his mother's birth canal, which means that as long as so much as one of his toes is still linked to his mother, the doctor may, with her consent, chop off the infant's head with total impunity. This is the Canadian way. What is being questioned, in short, is a basic tenet of our contemporary political culture.

But the disparaging of sex selection abortions is much more than a breakaway from Canadian conventional wisdom. For what we are being told is that the discriminating factor between permissible and non-permissible abortions should be their purpose, i.e. abortions based on a preference for a baby boy rather than a baby girl should be considered as "heinous acts of violence and hatred inflicted on women," while abortions based on any other preference should be viewed as legitimate.

The interesting point here is that one cannot argue that certain types of abortion, i.e. those based on sex selection, are "heinous acts of violence and hatred against women" without implicitly recognizing that abortion involves the killing of a human being. Indeed, it is precisely because some abortions are targeted at female human beings that they are denounced as heinous. And since a female human being is, by definition, human, it follows that what is at stake in an abortion is the life of a human being.

This might seem fairly obvious to some. But what is special is an acknowledgment from the pro-choice side that abortion involves the killing of a human being. We now have it on the authority of both a former Liberal minister of health and of a leading woman's rights activist that what the pro-life movement has been saying for decades and what its opponents have consistently denied is, in fact, true.

From at:


William Wilberforce's Great Grandson Says if Alive Today Wilberforce Would Fight Abortion

LifeSite News Editor's Note: The following letter by Fr Gerard Wilberforce, a Catholic priest in Exeter, who is the great grandson of the famed William Wilberforce is reproduced with the permission of Independent Catholic News.

By Fr. Gerard Wilberforce

March 31, 2008 ( - I am writing as the great great grandson of William Wilberforce, who campaigned vigorously for the ending of the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, which ultimately paved the way for the abolition of slavery itself throughout the entire British Empire in 1833.

I am often asked what would be the campaigns Wilberforce would be fighting if he were alive in 21st century Britain. I believe that there would be a number of different issues ­ among them human trafficking and the scourge of drugs. But almost certainly at the top of the list, would be the issue of abortion.

As the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill comes before Parliament over the next few weeks, the opportunity presents itself to amend the abortion Act. With the number of abortions having reached 200,000 per year in the UK alone, the time is right to tighten up the law that was designed to protect women by ending illegal abortion, but never to allow such a high degree of deprived life.

There are great similarities between the status of the foetus and the status of African slaves two centuries ago. Slaves were considered a commodity to do with whatever the vested interests of the day decided. Today, in our desire to play God in our embryology experimentation, with all its' unfulfilled promises of miracle cures, and our decision to abort unwanted children, we are no better that those slave traders who put their interests and world view higher than they placed the sanctity and value of human life.

Most people at the time didn't believe the evil of slavery could ever be defeated, as so much of the economy at the time was dependent on the trade. It's easy for us to think that is the case today with abortion, but I believe William Wilberforce would not take such a view.

Whilst our hearts go out to those who have chosen abortion, there should now be much greater emphasis on the alternatives that exist. Many of us would like to see far more support those who have made such a significant and difficult decision ­ but whilst we recognise the trauma many women have gone through, we also have a duty to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves' (Proverbs 31).

The Psalmist says 'My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.'

With abortions in the UK reaching 600 a day, it seems to me that the 'secret place', is one of the most dangerous places to be in modern day Britain.

As with my great ancestor, the battle took many years, even decades. But now, with the passage of time we look back in horror at how we devalued human life. I truly believe we will look back in years to come, repent and ask forgiveness for what we let happen to the unborn child.

There is something deeply depressing about a society in which abortion is so easy, yet alternatives such as adoption are made to appear so difficult.

Credit for LifeSite articles reproduced on this website:

Students Defy University Censorship And Plead For Peaceful Freedom Of Expression

CALGARY, AB, March 31, 2008 ( - The University of Calgary has threatened to censor one of its own student groups, Campus Pro-Life (CPL), from publicly displaying the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), an educational exhibit that graphically compares abortion to the Holocaust. CPL members are going to defy the university today and tomorrow as they ignore the new restrictions being placed on their group, and march onto campus to erect the signs.

In a letter to Campus Pro-Life, which was copied to university's vice-president of external affairs, Roman Cooney, the university's legal counsel Charlene Anderson wrote, "We have received numerous complaints in the past about the graphic and often disturbing nature of the Genocide Awareness Program's [sic] signs and placards… we require that the display of all GAP signs and photographs face inward…"

The university has not responded to CPL's query as to whether other groups have ever been subjected to this form of censorship.

Since 2006, GAP has been displayed at the U of C peacefully with its signs facing outwards on four occasions. However, at the most recent GAP display in October 2007, some individuals attempted to physically block the GAP display and impede dialogue between CPL members and their fellow students.

In correspondence with CPL, the university has thus far condoned this practice of physical intervention to prevent dialogue. The university has thus far refused CPL's request that opposing groups each be given their own space, in order to prevent the physical intimidation by pro-choice protestors which took place five months ago.

"The university is giving in to mob rule," stated CPL treasurer Leah Hallman. "Rather than hiding unpopular views, the university should facilitate the expression of all viewpoints and create a safe environment for dialogue," continued Hallman.

CPL president Matthew Wilson asked, "If a Muslim club were to set up a controversial exhibit on campus and a Christian club objected, would the university require the Muslim club to turn its display inward?"

Censorship is not foreign to the U of C. In March 2005, because of university restrictions, CPL displayed GAP off-campus. After a student violently attacked three GAP signs, generating a slew of negative media coverage for the university, CPL retained legal assistance and the U of C eventually changed its position and acknowledged the students' rights to conduct the display. In March 2006, the university erected signs around GAP that read, "The exhibit is protected under the relevant sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms related to Freedom of Expression." Since then, however, pro-choice protests have grown.

"If so-called pro-choice students don't like what we have to say, they should be allotted space to express their views, not assisted in their attempts to block ours-which is what the university has done," explained Wilson. He added, "The U of C administration could take a lesson from Russian university officials who didn't attempt to suppress GAP on their campuses last fall." Footage of these Russian GAP displays can be viewed here:

This act of censorship at the U of C is the latest in a string of incidents at universities across the country. In February, the student union at York University in Toronto banned an abortion debate. At the University of Toronto, the administration requires pro-life students to configure their GAP signs in a horseshoe-shape, with the opening facing inward. And at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Lakehead University in Ontario, and Capilano College and UBC-Okanagan in British Columbia, pro-life students have been denied club status.

Exhibit Details: *Monday, March 31 and Tuesday, April 1: U of C campus, between Science A & Science B, near MacEwan Hall Student Centre, 9:00am-2:30pm.



Virginia Cuts All Government Funding to Planned Parenthood

Senate surprisingly follows House in opposing abortion funding

By Michael Baggot

RICHMOND, VA, February 29, 2008 ( - The Virginia Senate decided to end taxpayer funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood on Wednesday.  Lt. Governor Bill Bolling cast the tie-breaking vote and approved the amendment to the state budget following the 20-20 tie vote among senators. 

Attorney general hopeful Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II introduced the amendment.  He explicitly attacked Planned Parenthood's abortion programs.  "What we are doing is financing an abortion-mill operator," Cuccinelli said. "This will deny them that money."

The decision was a surprise, given the Senate's Democratic majority.  Democrat Sen. Charles J. Colgan's vote in favor of the amendment led to the tie vote, which was decided by the Lt. Governor's vote.  Despite pressure from fellow Democrats, Colgan sided with 19 Republicans, stating, "I ran on a pro-life platform, and most of my constituents are pro-life."  Colgan cited fidelity to his conscience as a major reason for opposing funding to Planned Parenthood.

Democratic opponents of the amendment claimed that Planned Parenthood's programs actually decrease abortion, and that cutting funding to PP would hurt PP's HIV prevention and pregnancy prevention programs.

Sen. Janet D. Howell, argued that Planned Parenthood's contraceptive programs lead to a decreased number of abortions.  "The irony is, Planned Parenthood probably prevents more abortions than any other organization in the country," said Howell.

Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw expressed fears that the Wednesday decision will lead to further funding cuts to groups that supply abortion. "Once we start down this road, there will be no stopping," said Saslaw.

Last summer, Planned Parenthood revealed that it had received $305.3 million in tax-payer funding in 2006, 12 percent more than in the previous year.  Planned Parenthood admitted that 34 percent of its 2006 income came from taxpayer funding.  The organization also reported a $55.8 million profit for the year. 

The Republican-controlled House has already eliminated Planned Parenthood funding from its budget. 

Planned Parenthood's abortion support was a clear reason for House opposition to funding.  "We should shut off all federal dollars to any organization that provides abortion services or counseling," Rep. Stephen King told Cybercast News Service. 

Representatives also cited the inappropriate sexual material on Planned Parenthood's site as reason to end taxpayer support of the group.  The site tells teens that viewing pornography is normal.  "I don't believe taxpayer funding should be going to groups that put sexually explicit material on the Internet targeted at minors" said Rep. Joseph Pitts. 

The final state budget will be decided during the next week in light of both House and Senate proposals. 
[Click here to read the rest of this article on LifeSiteNews.]


[U.S.] Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Abortion Isn't Found in the Constitution

by Steven Ertelt Editor
March 5, 2008

Warrensburg, MO ( -- Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to students at the University of Central Missouri on Tuesday night and told them that abortion isn't found in the Constitution. He also indicated he would be lucky to get 60 votes in today's political climate where abortion rules how senators vote on judicial confirmations.

"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."

"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said, according to a Columbia Tribune report.

According to the newspaper, Scalia rejected the pro-abortion notion that the founding document is a "living Constitution," that is supposed to change with the times rather than guarantee ironclad rules and legal principles.

He also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.

"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.

The Tribune indicated Scalia said he's frustrated by the over-politicized climate that surrounds the nomination and approval of judges.

"I couldn't get 60 votes today because the people, representatives in Congress, want to pick somebody who will write the constitution we want," he said.



The Day Humanity Became Cheap

David Frum  

Tuesday, January 22, 2008  

Dave Sidaway, CanWest News Service

On Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in the case of R. vs. Morgentaler, which struck down the abortion provision in the Criminal Code. As a result, Canada became the only Western nation with no abortion law -- a situation that persists to this day. This week, National Post writers will be looking at the legacy of R. vs. Morgentaler. In today's first instalment, David Frum argues that the decision served to cheapen the value of human life.  [What follows is an excerpt from a the National Post article.]


On Jan. 28, Canada marks the 20th anniversary of what may be the most astounding decision in the nation's legal history: R. vs. Morgentaler, the case that struck down Canada's abortion laws.

The Morgentaler case was followed the next year by Daigle vs. Tremblay, which clarified and amplified the Morgentaler ruling.

The result of the two decisions was to give Canada the Western world's most radical abortion regime. The mother's ownership of the pregnancy is absolute and final, and she may end it at any moment, for any reason. Neither the father of the child-to-be, nor the government, nor the child itself has any rights in the matter at all.

Almost every other advanced country on Earth grants the fetus in the womb some measure of protection.

British abortion laws are famously permissive. Yet even in Britain, late abortion must be medically certified as necessary to protect the health of the mother. Last year, a British court convicted and sentenced a woman who had procured a seventh-month abortion without medical permission.

. . . .

Late-term abortions remain legal in Canada. When it was reported that no Canadian doctor would perform them, the Quebec government acted to create a new clinic in Montreal specifically for this purpose.

All this is the legacy of the Morgentaler case -- even if Morgentaler himself condemns late-term abortion as ethically offensive.

Yet the profoundest ethical consequences of the Morgentaler case may have only begun to arrive.

If a 24-week fetus with a head, heart, eyes and hands is not a person deserving of protection, then how much less human is an eight-day old embryo? The Morgentaler case opened the door to radical scientific experiments with early human beings -- and Canadian scientists have availed themselves of the opportunity.

In 2002, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research issued the first ethical guidelines for such research, and they seem sensible enough. But it is hard to see how these restrictions can last. . . . .

As law, R. vs. Morgentaler is a strange document, suffused with the weird argot of 1980svintage feminist ideology. Justice Bertha Wilson argued that no man could ever properly appreciate the abortion issue "because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche, which are at the heart of the dilemma."

To the extent that Wilson's words carry any meaning at all, they claim that the moral problem of abortion is a problem only of the feelings and emotions of the pregnant woman. Even in 1988, that was an obtuse thing to say.

At the heart of the abortion dilemma is the question of what it means to be human. In this new century, that problem will challenge us again and again and again. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from human intelligence, we will have to wonder: Can a machine become a "person"? As a new generation of environmentalists stake bolder claims for animals, we will have to consider: Are human rights only for human beings? And as the science of human genetics advances, we will encounter opportunities to reshape our very species.

Ahead of us, in other words, await some of the most difficult and awesome moral questions ever faced by human beings. And as those questions intensify, the answers offered by R. vs. Morgentaler will look more and more inadequate, shallow, short-sighted and obsolete.


News Release from LifeCanada


310 – 376 Churchill Avenue N.

Ottawa ON   K1Z 5C3                                                                

Tel: 1-866-780-5433  Fax: 613-722-2201



For Immediate Release

 January 22, 2008

Abortion: Have we gone too far?


January 28 marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that removed all legal restrictions on abortion in Canada . In those 20 years, during which abortion has been allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy, almost 2 million Canadian babies have been aborted.


LifeCanada, a national educational pro-life group, has launched a media campaign asking Canadians, “Have we gone too far?” by allowing unrestricted abortion. There are over 100,000 abortions each year in Canada and taxpayers pay for almost all of them.


“This isn’t health care,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “It isn’t life saving or life giving. It takes a human life and increases a woman’s risk of many subsequent health problems.  It is time we re-examined unrestricted abortion.”


Provincial and local groups across the country have sponsored billboards, transit ads and radio and newspaper ads asking Canadians to re-think their position on abortion. The ads promote a website,, which includes statistics, history, medical research and other information on the issue.


Byfield says a pro-abortion attitude has infected our politics, our media and our national psyche. “Have we gone too far?” she asked. “Let’s look at the evidence.”


·         Abortions can be performed throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no medical reason and data show that hundreds are performed each year after 20 weeks gestation, the point of viability.

·         Pro-life people who protest or pray near abortion facilities can be arrested, charged and jailed for expressing their opinions.

·         Campus pro-life groups across Canada are denied club status because student governments don’t want to hear pro-life opinions and don’t want others to hear them either.

·         To date, the cities of Fredericton and Hamilton have refused to allow our ads to run in their transit shelters. One city councillor in Hamilton found them “offensive.”

·         A bill currently before Parliament to allow the killer of a pregnant woman to be charged with two deaths is opposed on the basis that it threatens abortion rights even though the bill includes an exception for abortion. Some Canadians would rather ignore the murder of a “wanted” child than risk some notional threat to abortion rights.

Byfield said a majority of Canadians believe there should be legal protection for the unborn. In an October 2007 poll by Environics Research, 62% of Canadians said they supported legal protection at some stage of pregnancy.  Women and young people aged 18 to 30 were even more supportive at 67%. 

“Despite 20 years of unrestricted abortion and the suppression of a public debate on the issue, there is still strong support for protection of the most fundamental of human rights---the right to life for all human beings,” said Byfield.


“After 20 years, it is time to reassess the policy,” said Byfield. “We hope Canadians will go to the website, read the material and think carefully about the question we pose: ‘Abortion: Have we gone too far?’ Canada is the only western country with no legal restriction on abortion and we think it is time for a national discussion on this issue. Questioning Canada ’s abortion policy should not be a taboo subject.”




For more information, call Joanne Byfield at 780-939-6365 or780-445-0344 (cell) or Gudrun Schultz at 613-722-1552. For interviews in French, contact Nicole Pyle at 306-683-0829.



Michael Coren: Ignoring the most important right of all

In an ongoing series, National Post writers are being asked a simple question: If you had the power to change a single thing about Canada, what would it be? In today's instalment, Michael Coren argues that Canada's lack of an abortion law is a national disgrace.

It is tragically ironic that the most vital and profound issue facing this country is considered by many of its citizens and most of its establishment to be at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous digression championed by zealots. The issue is, of course, abortion. And Canada is almost unique in the civilized world in having no abortion law at all. In other words, any unborn child can be aborted and in most of the country the taxpayer will finance the procedure.
Can we, however, genuinely regard ourselves as part of a "civilized world" if we treat our most vulnerable with such indifference? What is supposed to be the safest place for a human being -- the womb -- has been transformed into a slaughterhouse for humanity, with more than 100,000 abortions in Canada each year.
The biting hypocrisy of Canada's attitude toward the unborn was demonstrated particularly clearly last week when it emerged that a Winnipeg woman had been murdered in February for refusing to have an abortion. Even though the general and natural response was to regard this crime as being especially repugnant, and as the taking of two lives, her killer cannot be charged with double homicide. Instead of simply intellectualizing the instinctive and accepting the self-evident truth of unborn life, we twist and turn to deny what we know to be true.
If, for example, an obviously pregnant women sat in a bar smoking heavily and drinking profusely, the reaction would be one of disgust. If the same woman told friends that she wanted an abortion, the reaction would often be entirely supportive.
The inconsistency applies equally with dis-ability-based abortion. Our country boasts that it cares deeply for the handicapped, yet provides
publicly funded testing so that handicapped children can be aborted. The gene for Downs Syndrome was discovered by a man who thought it would help us to prepare for Downs babies and improve their lives. Instead, it's being used to commit a form of pre-birth genocide on some of the most innocent, loving and beautiful people on Earth. Leave your car in a handicapped parking spot and you'll be fined. Abort your handicapped child and you'll receive government financing.
Some of the contradictions around the subject are acutely political. The Canadian feminist movement has campaigned obsessively for abortion rights but now finds itself in a quandary because so many female unborn babies are being selectively aborted in the developing world.
We swim against the tide of natural law and pretend that life is not life and killing not killing. With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed.
But we still know that it's not tissue, it's not a fetus, it's not an accident and it's not unwanted. Most of all, it's not about "choice." The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.
The fact that it is dependant on its mother while in the womb is irrelevant. A newborn baby is also dependant on an adult to feed it and keep it alive. So for that matter are the seriously ill and the aged.
We have allowed the cult of the self to blind our vision of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Choice has become taste, sexual love has become appetite, people have become disposable. Unless we allow the weakest to be born we are denying what underpins the very compassion, fairness and progress we claim to admire. Some rights are more important than others and none is more sacred than the right to life.
-Michael Coren is a broadcaster and author.

In an ongoing series, National Post writers are being asked a simple question: If you had the power to change a single thing about Canada, what would it be? In today's instalment, Michael Coren argues that Canada's lack of an abortion law is a national disgrace.

It is tragically ironic that the most vital and profound issue facing this country is considered by many of its citizens and most of its establishment to be at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous digression championed by zealots. The issue is, of course, abortion. And Canada is almost unique in the civilized world in having no abortion law at all. In other words, any unborn child can be aborted and in most of the country the taxpayer will finance the procedure.
Can we, however, genuinely regard ourselves as part of a "civilized world" if we treat our most vulnerable with such indifference? What is supposed to be the safest place for a human being -- the womb -- has been transformed into a slaughterhouse for humanity, with more than 100,000 abortions in Canada each year.
The biting hypocrisy of Canada's attitude toward the unborn was demonstrated particularly clearly last week when it emerged that a Winnipeg woman had been murdered in February for refusing to have an abortion. Even though the general and natural response was to regard this crime as being especially repugnant, and as the taking of two lives, her killer cannot be charged with double homicide. Instead of simply intellectualizing the instinctive and accepting the self-evident truth of unborn life, we twist and turn to deny what we know to be true.
If, for example, an obviously pregnant women sat in a bar smoking heavily and drinking profusely, the reaction would be one of disgust. If the same woman told friends that she wanted an abortion, the reaction would often be entirely supportive.
The inconsistency applies equally with dis-ability-based abortion. Our country boasts that it cares deeply for the handicapped, yet provides
publicly funded testing so that handicapped children can be aborted. The gene for Downs Syndrome was discovered by a man who thought it would help us to prepare for Downs babies and improve their lives. Instead, it's being used to commit a form of pre-birth genocide on some of the most innocent, loving and beautiful people on Earth. Leave your car in a handicapped parking spot and you'll be fined. Abort your handicapped child and you'll receive government financing.
Some of the contradictions around the subject are acutely political. The Canadian feminist movement has campaigned obsessively for abortion rights but now finds itself in a quandary because so many female unborn babies are being selectively aborted in the developing world.
We swim against the tide of natural law and pretend that life is not life and killing not killing. With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed.
But we still know that it's not tissue, it's not a fetus, it's not an accident and it's not unwanted. Most of all, it's not about "choice." The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.
The fact that it is dependant on its mother while in the womb is irrelevant. A newborn baby is also dependant on an adult to feed it and keep it alive. So for that matter are the seriously ill and the aged.
We have allowed the cult of the self to blind our vision of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Choice has become taste, sexual love has become appetite, people have become disposable. Unless we allow the weakest to be born we are denying what underpins the very compassion, fairness and progress we claim to admire. Some rights are more important than others and none is more sacred than the right to life.
-Michael Coren is a broadcaster and author.


Mother Demands Justice against Abortionist for Letting Daughter Die As He Was Killing Her Child
"My daughter was 22, healthy, and alive when she walked into that clinic ... There is no reason for her to be dead."
LifeSite Monday, Oct. 1, 2007

By Peter J. Smith

HYANNIS, Massachusetts, October 1, 2007 ( - A Massachusetts woman is demanding the authorities take action against an abortionist, who destroyed her daughter's unborn child while she died of cardiac arrest on his operating table.

Operation Rescue reports that Eileen Smith has initiated legal action against abortionist Rabin Osathanondh in order to prevent her daughter's cruel death from being merely "swept under the rug" as frequently occurs after abortion tragedies.

Smith's 22-year old daughter, Laura Hope Smith, walked into Osathanondh's Women Health Clinic in Hyannis on September 13, 2007, as a healthy young woman engaged to be married before she died on Osathanondh's abortion table. A friend had taken Laura to the abortion clinic without the knowledge of her mother, Eileen, who told Operation Rescue that she never realized her daughter was 13 weeks pregnant and considering an abortion until both her daughter and the child were dead.

Early reports had indicated that Smith's daughter had died of hemorrhage from the abortion, but Smith contends this information is erroneous. "There was no bleeding. She stopped breathing and went into cardiac arrest," said Smith. . . . .

British Columbia Government Rejects Mandated Parental Permission for Minors’ Health Care

In a letter dated September 3, 2007, Attorney General Wally Oppal made it clear that the government of British Columbia has no plans to alter the current situation in which parents have no guarantee of input into the “health care” provided their children.  As we have pointed out numerous times, this means that your fourteen-year-old daughter, if you have one, could come home having had an abortion as a result of a referral from her school, without your consent and even without your knowledge.

The letter from the Attorney General came as a follow-up to a meeting BCPTL had with him and with a representative of the Ministry of Health.  In response to our request for a meeting with the provincial Attorney-General, the Minister of Health, and the Education Minister, we were received by the Attorney-General and a representative of the Ministry of Health on June 21st.  The BCPTL president and Janice McCabe, our treasurer, were accompanied by John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition BC and Doris Darvasi, president of REAL Women of BC.  (We greatly appreciated the support of these two leaders.)   No representative of the Ministry of Education was there, and, we have never received from the Education Minister any acknowledgement of our request for the meeting.
            We regret that the provincial government has chosen to continue to ignore the rights of parents and their legitimate position of defenders of their own children
.  The Attorney General's letter is given below:

For the letter from George Abbott referred to above, see below
August 4, 2006, Reply from the British Columbia Health Minister . . .


Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore

Andrea Mrozek

From: National Post, Thursday, September 13, 2007

Abortion is one of the most common surgeries performed on women in Canada. Roughly 105,000 are performed annually, 70% of them on women between the ages of 10 and 29.

Yet Canadian medical research into the health risks associated with abortion is virtually non-existent. This is in part because Canada's debate about abortion became dominated by legal-rights talk after the Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988.

Despite this, new medical research continues to emerge on the subject in other nations -- research that Canadian women need to consider before they put themselves at risk of unwanted pregnancy.

The American Psychological Association (APA) recently removed an old statement about abortion and mental health from its Web site, a statement that declared abortion to be largely benign. They have convened a task force on the subject, and will issue a new statement in 2008.

David Fergusson, a New Zealand psychologist, is the author of a longitudinal study on abortion published in 2006. He tends to garner media attention because he is a self-described pro-choice atheist, not a social conservative. His work showed negative mental-health outcomes for women post-abortion, while controlling for their pre-abortion mental health.

Dr. Fergusson's results did not just show an increase in general depression. They showed increased effects across a wide array of outcomes, including substance-abuse disorders, anxiety, suicide and suicide ideation. According to Dr. Fergusson's work, post-abortive women show increased risk of phobia, panic attacks and fears "or just a generalized feeling of concern and anxiety at a level deemed to be clinically significant."

He describes the irony: "99% of abortions in New Zealand are conducted on mental-health

grounds. And our study suggests that this procedure may increase mental-health risks."

Then there is Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. She thinks there is an unwillingness to consider new research done throughout the 1990s, largely because the results of that research were not in line with today's pro-choice political environment. The topic is so volatile that many academics fear not gaining tenure if they take it on.

Since 2002, 15 of Ms. Cole-man's studies have showed negative health outcomes for women post-abortion. Some of these outcomes include the following: an increased likelihood to use drugs generally (one study showed increased drug use during subsequent pregnancies), increased trouble sleeping and increased general levels of anxiety.

These are well-designed studies that have overcome prior flaws such as a failure to control for existing psychological problems, high participant dropout rates and a lack of wide-scale representation. Ms. Coleman also has conducted two studies controlling for the wanted-ness of the pregnancy, showing increased odds of psychological and emotional problems amongst women who aborted versus those who carried to term, even controlling the data such that all the pregnancies were unwanted   and unplanned in the first place. Her work has appeared in a number of reputable journals, but has yet to be widely publicized.  [Click to read the rest of this article in the National Post online.]


Pro-Lifer Violently Assaulted Outside Abortion Clinic, Police Take Time After Repeat 911 Calls

By Elizabeth O'Brien

ROCKFORD, Illinois, August 23, 2007 ( - A peaceful pro-life witness was violently assaulted outside an abortion site on Tuesday. Police responded late to his 911 after he was beaten by an unknown visitor to the clinic.

Early on Tuesday morning August 21, three Rockford pro-lifers-Ken Plez, Pat Brady and Kevin Rilott-were praying quietly in front of the Northern Illinois Women's Center (abortuary) for an end to abortion. A large white truck pulled into the clinic parking lot, and without setting foot on the clinic property, Rilott approached and tried to talk to the people inside.

In a detailed account of the event Rilott described how the pro-choice man got out of his truck and approached him, saying, "You shouldn't be here, you're upsetting my wife." He then began to hit Rilott in the chest, ribs, and stomach. Rilott did not strike back at the man, but managed to call 911. As he was being beaten, he begged for immediate police assistance.

He told his pro-abortion attacker that the police were on the way, but the man said he didn't care. The assaulter also said that "after he bonded out" he would come back and get him. After breaking Rilott's sign, the man then went into the abortion clinic.

Meanwhile, ten minutes had passed and there was still no sign of the police. Rilott called again and said, "We just had an assault and the guy who did it is still here." Finally, after a conservative estimate of 20 minutes, a squad car arrived. It was driving within the speed limit without any sirens or lights flashing. By this time, Rilott said, the attacker had already entered the building, talked with the owner Wayne Webster and then driven away.

When the police arrived, the pro-life witnesses asked an officer to get footage of the event from the clinic surveillance cameras. The officer chuckled, "you know he'll say he doesn't have one." The officer inquired inside the clinic, but Webster said he'd forgotten to start his video camera that morning. Webster claimed, however, that he saw Rilott attack the man with his sign.

Rilott asked the officer if "I attacked the guy why did I call 911 three times asking for help" and "why did the guy go in to the safety of the clinic then decide to run away before the police got there?" The officer didn't say anything (Click here to read the full account of the assault.):

Non-Canadian Abortion Advocate Recruited to Face Young Pro-Life Leader

By Elizabeth O'Brien

CALGARY, August 14, 2007 ( - After avoiding public face-offs with pro-lifers for many years, abortion advocates are stepping up to the platform. Responding to the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) abortion truck campaign, a pro-abortion top-gun has been brought in all the way from the States to be interviewed with young pro-life leader Stephanie Gray on the issue of abortion.

Abortion advocates have carefully avoided such encounters in the past, but a recent media frenzy over the giant billboards depicting aborted fetuses have caused a long-time abortion warrior to accept a public debate. . . . .


TorontoSun online

August 11, 2007

Empathy key in abortion issue

"With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed."


Fall to your knees and pray, the great miracle has occurred.

Praise the, well, praise public funding -- the CBC has reported that abortion might not be a universal blessing and that the whole discussion is not quite as banal as merely being about a woman's right to choose.

Okay, they didn't exactly word it in that way and they may have shot themselves in the foot, but their story last week was extraordinarily revealing. They revealed that advertisements in two Canadian Punjabi newspapers were promoting ultrasound clinics in the United States where, "You are told the sex (of the baby) immediately."

The implication of this, the story continued, was that "female fetuses" would be aborted. The article then quoted a community activist who said that this was "really, really sad."

But just hold on one little Canadian moment. In this country abortion is legal (theoretically, up to the ninth month) and always paid for by public tax dollars. In fact, it's one of the few elective surgeries never touched by the government, when hospitals and essential medical care are under threat and cut back.

The leaders of the abortion industry receive Orders of Canada and honorary doctorates and are lionized as national heroes. They remove excess tissue so that women can be free and it has nothing to do with life or children.

No woman has to provide any sort of reason for her abortion and has the procedure paid for by you and me no matter how wealthy she may be. She can have several "terminations" if she likes, and the father is irrelevant in the case.

So what does it matter if the abortion is of a male or a female?After all, doctors may suggest such a procedure if there is any suspicion of severe disability.   [Click here to read the whole article.]

"Abolish Abortion in Canada" is the Top Canadian Wish, CBC Announces

"This should come as no surprise to anyone," said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). "We have always noted and the polls have confirmed that the majority of Canadians want protection for the unborn child. This poll of sorts by the CBC and Facebook only confirms what we have been saying all along."

Referring to the phenomenal pro-life response, Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer Campaign Life Coalition, stated, "With almost 10,000 people taking the trouble to respond to this request for their opinion, I trust that the CBC will publish this list, highlighting the number one wish for Canada." She continued, "The politicians must also take note that this is an issue that will not go away until justice for the unborn becomes a reality."

David Gilbert, a university student at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, originally posted the wish to "Abolish Abortion in Canada". He told that he has always supported the pro-life movement, especially because he was a product of a teenage relationship. "Abortion was an option for my mother," he said. "People suggested it to her. Thankfully she didn't choose it."

He indicated the importance of the Wish List victory, saying, "Having the Wish List and it becoming number one shows that young Canadians really want to talk about this issue. Our nation's conscience is not settled on abortion."

He also stated, "I hope it shows politicians that we do want to support those MP's and MPP's that support life and that they don't have to be afraid of where they stand on the issue. Too many of them are afraid that they would lose votes if they reveal their stance on abortion."

"The amazing thing-whether you agree with it or not-is that we got the message out there, started people talking about it. People were really apathetic about it before. I hope it challenges people's views about abortion and that it becomes a major issue in Canada."

Suzanne Fortin, author of the Big Blue Wave blog, has been one of the major driving forces behind the pro-life support of the Great Canadian Wish List through her blogs and storms of emails.

As the contest was approaching its climax, Fortin told, "The objective of our participation in this contest was to bring media attention to the cause of the rights of unborn children, and to make it known that large numbers of people do not feel that abortion is a 'settled' issue."

She described the major media coverage, saying, "Numerous mainstream media outlets covered or mentioned this contest and the fact that pro-lifers had effectively mobilized. Countless blogs also covered the issue. Those who oppose legal rights for unborn children felt compelled to react to our mobilization and publicize the campaign."

Kristen Van Houten, for example, who originally started, "I wish that Canada would remain pro-life," admitted herself on the Facebook wish page that she was creating the wish in response to "the growing support for the 'pro life' group's wish" and as an "alternative for anyone who is pro-choice."

As a result of the race for votes, Fortin emphasized that the public will see that "abortion is not a settled issue in Canada, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the left-wing establishment, and that there are still many people willing to speak out against the human rights abuses of the unborn."

"In light of our principal objective, and the resulting coverage of the Wish List contest, our mobilization was a rousing success." She continued, "We managed to bring attention to the plight of the unborn child (and) debunk the notion that there is 'social peace' on the abortion issue to a large number of people."



Daily Mail  01/07/07 - Femail section

I tried twice to abort my baby - but I'm delighted I failed
Paula Robinson has much to be thankful for. She lives in a £500,000 house, drives a Mercedes and has two beautiful children - Ryan, nine, and Tara, five.
She is also glowing, for beneath her fashionable smock Paula, 40, is pregnant for the third time with a healthy new baby.

But beneath this seemingly happy picture lies an unpalatable truth: shockingly, Paula has twice tried to abort this most recent pregnancy.

Indeed, having survived such an assault, even Paula now refers to her previously unwanted child as a "little miracle".

But the story of how this tiny dot has fought to cling to its chance of life is only one part of this harrowing and in some ways inspiring story.

Because for Paula, a wealthy divorcee, this pregnancy has not only changed her life, it has had far-reaching consequences.

For it has fundamentally challenged her own views on one of the most contentious issues of our time - that of a woman's right to abortion on demand.

It is a subject which remains at the heart of a fierce national debate. Last week, the Mail reported how this week doctors voted for a controversial change in the law that will make it easier for women to get early terminations.

The British Medical Association voted to scrap the need for two doctors to approve a woman's request before the 12th week of pregnancy, raising ethical concerns over abortion becoming little more than a lifestyle choice.

Paula herself tried to end her pregnancy twice in the first trimester.

She says: "I feel so guilty and ashamed that I tried to kill my own baby. But although I've been through a terrible experience it has been a totally humbling one, which I believe has made me a better person.

"I used to think of an unwanted pregnancy as just a bundle of cells that you could get rid of without too much hassle. Now, I feel many women, just like me, do not think deeply enough about what they are doing.

"It's only now, having gone through the process of having a termination, that I realise why you hear all the time about women who - often years later - regret terribly having an abortion.

"I just feel incredibly lucky that after everything I've done, my baby is still alive and I will not have to live with that regret."

Until Paula, a former fashion model and exprofessional show horse jumper, fell pregnant with baby number three, she had never been in the unfortunate position of having to cope with an unwanted pregnancy.
Her first two children, Ryan and Tara born during her eight-year marriage to Philip, a 36-year-old property developer, were much-wanted.

"I so desperately wanted children, and Ryan was very much a planned baby," she says. "When Tara came along four years later, Philip and I both felt our family was complete."

However, in August 2003, the marriage began to crumble. "After Tara's birth, which was a long and difficult labour, I suffered post-natal depression, and Philip and I began rowing.

"Eventually, to my dismay, he left and 18 months later we divorced.

"Of course I was devastated, and would never have chosen for my children to be raised without their father at home, but sometimes couples just can't work out there problems and there is no option but to separate."

Paula remained in the family home in Stockton-on-Tees with the children, who saw their father regularly.

Then, in 2005, while on a night out with friends she met Jonathan, who owned an electrical contracting company.

"We clicked straightaway," she says. "He was good-looking, fantastic with the kids and I really thought I'd found the perfect man," she recalls, "within months we felt committed enough for him to move in with me and the children."

Life seemed great. "Jonathan was well off and over the next two years we enjoyed holidays to exotic places such as Mexico," she says.

"We discussed having children and although I felt happy with my two, I didn't want to deny Jonathan the chance to have a baby.

"We both dreamed of moving to the countryside and building our own home.

"Jonathan particularly wanted a son and because I was getting older, I even looked into having my eggs frozen, ensuring I could still give him children well into my 40s.
"However, we had decided to wait a while. I was building up my business buying and selling horses and his business meant he travelled all over the UK, so we wanted to wait. Consequently, I was taking the Pill."

However, in January this year Paula forgot to take her Pill for a couple of days. "As soon as I checked my packet I realised my mistake - in fact I was concerned enough to go to my chemist for the morning-after pill, which I took," she says.

So, when her expected period didn't arrive that month, she wasn't unduly concerned.

"A friend who'd taken the morning-after pill said it had mucked up her system completely and she'd also missed her first period so I didn't think anything of it."

However, within a couple of weeks, Paula began to notice the tell-tale signs of pregnancy. "My breasts were tender and I began feeling sick. Finally, I bought a test from the chemist and to my shock it was positive."

Though it had not been planned, Paula thought Jonathan would be pleased. "The more I thought about it, the more I felt it wasn't a disaster - it had just happened earlier than we'd hoped."

But nothing could have prepared her for Jonathan's reaction.

"He was away on business and I immediately rang him on his mobile. However, I'd barely told him when he simply put the phone down. It was the worst possible reaction I could have imagined.

"Worse was to come - when, a few hours later, he rang me back, he simply told me coldly I should get rid of it and he would pay for the abortion.

"I felt totally devastated. It was so unlike him and just beyond explanation."

She sank into a depression. "I was totally distraught," Paula recalls, "I couldn't believe the situation I found myself in as a mature woman.

"I hoped he would come round, but every time I spoke to him it was the same - he told me I had to get a termination. He didn't even come back to the house to get the things he'd left here.

"As the weeks went by I realised Jonathan was not the man I thought he was and while I longed for him to walk through the door and say he had changed his mind, he never came back.

. . . .   "I haven't been brought up to have children as a 'single mother' and I couldn't see how I could give birth to a child who has no father around.

It also just didn't seem fair to bring a child into the world in those circumstances.

"Practically, I also worried how I would provide for a third child.

"Once he failed to return, I had no idea where Jonathan was living and he changed his numbers, so getting maintenance already seemed fraught with problems. And, looking at the future for myself, I wondered what other man would want to take on someone like me?

"The more I thought about it - the more I came to the realisation I had only one option - a termination."

Paula didn't rush into making a decision. "I spoke to my GP who referred me to a counsellor. I also rang Life, the anti-abortion organisation and even the Samaritans.

"The counsellor and the Samaritans just listened. But although the woman from Life tried to point out that my third baby could still have a loving home with its siblings, nothing could convince me not to go ahead with an abortion."
Paula booked into a private abortion clinic near her home and after a scan confirmed she was just under eight weeks pregnant, handed over the £465 payment.

"I could see the baby's heartbeat on the scan," she says, "and I couldn't stop crying. Whichever way I turned I felt guilty - guilty if I had a termination, guilty if I brought a baby into the world in such circumstances, and guilty for stupidly getting pregnant in the first place.

"I had to leave the children at home with someone else, and my mother came with me for support and we both sat there sobbing together."

Doctors gave Paula the abortion pill, a powerful concoction of drugs that works by blocking essential hormones to the baby, inducing a termination, usually within hours.

"I took the first pill in the clinic," says Paula, "and was to take a second pill two days later at home. Staff explained I would probably begin to bleed within hours."

However, within two hours of taking the pill, Paula became violently ill. "I couldn't keep anything down and showed no signs of an abortion beginning," she recalls.

The following day she was so ill she went back to the clinic.

"The doctor explained I'd had an unusual reaction in which the body rejects the pill and because I'd vomited so much it wouldn't have been absorbed properly.

"I felt absolutely traumatised that it hadn't worked and after all that suffering and anguish I was still pregnant. I was too unwell to take another pill, but the doctor said I could have a different type of abortion done at their clinic in Manchester."

So the following week Paula went to Manchester to try once more to end her unborn child's life. "Doctors there said they could suck the foetus out, doing this termination under a general anaesthetic," she says.

"Once more I had to steel myself for this ordeal and kept telling myself that it was the right decision. I got ready for the operation, but then went for the scan that they legally must do before going ahead.

"This more advanced scan revealed my pregnancy was over the limit of 12 to 13 weeks for the procedure they'd planned. I couldn't believe it when the doctor broke the news they couldn't go through with it.

"I was sure they must have got my dates wrong but they were adamant they wouldn't perform the operation."

Instead, to Paula's horror, the doctors told her she would have to travel to London for a two-stage procedure where they would induce labour and then remove the foetus during an operation.

She would probably need an overnight stay. Inevitably, she was thrown into turmoil at this almost farcical situation.

"By now I had seen my baby's arms and legs waving on the scan. My baby was fully formed and even I marvelled at how it had grown so quickly into this perfect little human shape.

"The sonographer estimated I may be as much as 14 or 15 weeks pregnant, and it seemed perfectly healthy and looked remarkably happy considering I'd already tried twice to destroy it.

"Suddenly it felt as if I would really be killing my baby. My mother obviously felt the same way. 'You could always give it up for adoption,' she murmured.

"I went out of the room. 'I'm sorry,' I said to the nurse as I walked out of the clinic. 'I just don't think I can go through with this.' It was both the hardest and easiest decision I have ever made in my life.

"Overcome with emotion, I came home and wept. I put my hands on my tummy - already I could feel the bump and was overcome with guilt at what I'd tried to do."

The next day, Paula told Ryan and Tara she was going to have a baby and found herself resolved to keep the child.

Paula is now five months pregnant and after further scans and tests to check her baby's health, doctors have reassured her that baby number three is fine and unharmed by the trauma she put it through.

Although because of her age she could have further tests, such as an amniocentesis, to check for abnormalities such as Down's, she has decided not to have them.

"I am so pleased I have kept this baby and I really don't want to put it through anything else," she says.

"My baby is moving and I certainly couldn't consider terminating it, whatever the circumstances. Now I feel I have had an incredibly lucky escape.

"I used to think having a termination when a baby was so tiny was nothing. It seems to be so common these days and accepted among women.

"I know of friends who've gone through the same process and not given it much thought. I, too, imagined that after the abortion my life would go back to 'normal' - it would be over quickly and tidily.

"But now I don't believe you can simply put to one side aborting a baby, and I think had the abortion worked, then in years to come I may well have regretted it terribly.

"I would have constantly thought of what my child would have been like.

"What I saw at that private clinic also totally shocked me. I expected to see young girls on their own waiting in the abortion clinic. Instead it was like a cattle market - full of women of all ages - many with their husbands and partners encouraging them to go through with it.

"I couldn't help wondering why all of these women - many seemingly in relationships - were ending their pregnancies.

"I was shocked that it seems to be just so normal to have an abortion these days, and although the staff at the clinic were lovely, no one even suggested there may be a different way forward.

"It has changed my outlook completely. I still believe that women should have the choice to have an abortion if they really feel they need one, particularly when the baby is going to be seriously disabled, when it may be best for everyone.

"But I also feel there must be many women like myself who are in such shock when they fall pregnant, that they don't fully think through all the implications of what they are doing.

"Of course, I still feel guilty that I didn't want this child - I can imagine myself forever trying to make up for it when it's born - but I truly feel fate has taken a hand.

"My baby wanted life so much, it is meant to be. To me it is already a miracle baby."

[Click here for the whole story on the Daily Mail online.]


BCPTL Request Meeting with Government Ministers on Parental Consent for Minors' Health Care Results in Meeting with Attorney-General and Representative of Ministry of Health June 21, 2007

On May 16th, B.C. Parents and Teachers for Life sent a letter to three provincial cabinet ministers:  Shirley Bond, Minister of Education, George Abbott, Minister of Health, and Wally Oppal, Attorney-General. regarding the need to mandate parental consent for health care for minors.  As a result of the provisions of the provincial Infants Act, as we have pointed out many times as an example, a fourteen-year-old girl in British Columbia can have an abortion without her parents' consent, or counsel, and even without their knowledge, as a result of a referral by a school nurse.

In our May 16th letter we wrote:  "We ask that you, whose ministries have jurisdiction over health, education, and law, meet with us and with representatives of other organizations to discuss the issue of parental consent as it concerns the health care of minors.  This is a matter that has been ignored for too long.   We would appreciate it if you would name a place and time when it would be convenient for you to have such a meeting.  We would like to inform other concerned organizations so that we may bring several representatives of those organizations to the meeting."

We were pleased  to receive a phone call informing us that our request for a meeting had  been granted, and on June 21st [2007] representatives of BCPTL accompanied by representatives of Campaign Life Coalition BC and REAL Women of BC had a meeting with one of the cabinet ministers we had asked to see: Attorney-General Wally Oppal, as well as a representative of the Ministry of Health, Mr. Craig Knight.   No representative of the Ministry of Education was there, and we have received from the Education Minister no acknowledgement of our request.  Subscribers to the BCPTL Bulletin will receive a more detailed report of the meeting.

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Written Presentation for British Columbia Government Ministers—June 21, 2007

On the Necessity for Mandated Parental Permission

for Minors’ Health Care  

In 1992, the government of the day, in spite of vocal opposition, brought in legislation authorizing a “health care provider” to arrange “health care” for an infant without obtaining the parent or guardian’s consent to that “care.”  Subsequently, the government admitted that no law or ministry directive prevented pro-abortion counselling or referrals in the public schools.

 British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life (BCPTL) has long been concerned about this change in the Infants Act, and has made written representations to successive governments regarding the matter.  On March 30, 2006, a petition drawn up by BCPTL was presented in the legislature asking “. . .that the Honourable House enact legislation to mandate the consent of an infant’s parent or guardian before a health care provider arranges health care, except in the case of a medical emergency reaquiring immediate treatment when the consent of the parent or guardian is not available.”

We feel that the issue of parental health care for minors is basically a matter of parental rights, which ought to be a matter of concern to all parents, no matter what their attitude towards abortion is.

The Infants Act in  Section 17, Subsection 2 reads: 
           Subject to subsection (3), an infant may consent to health care whether or not that health care would, in
            the absence of consent, constitute a trespass to the infant's person, and if an infant provides that consent, the
            consent is effective and it is not necessary to obtain a consent to the health care from the infant's parent or

Subsection 3 has this to say:
  A request for or consent, agreement or acquiescence to health care by an infant does not constitute consent to
                   the health care for the purposes of subsection (2) unless the health care provider providing the health care 
                  (a) has explained to the infant and has been satisfied that the infant understands the nature and consequences
                   and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care, and 
                  (b) has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the infant's best
It is important to note that the subsection just quoted leaves entirely up to the “health-care provider” the judgement as to whether the “infant” or minor “understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care.   All that the health-care provider needs to say is that he or she was satisfied with the infant’s understanding.  And the parent is given no ability to over-ride the health-care-provider’s judgement.  In fact, there is no requirement that the parent be even notified of the medical procedure that might be carried out in the name of health care.    We have often used the illustration that a fourteen-year-old daughter could come home from the abortion clinic having had an abortion without her parents’ consent or even their knowledge, and without having the benefit of their counsel in the matter.

We should note, too, that in Subsection 3(b) the health-care provider is only required to have “. . .concluded that the health care is in the infant’s best interests.  His only justification under the Infants Act is that he arrived at that conclusion, hardly an assertion subject to successful challenge.

In a letter of July 3, 2006, we asked the Health Minister to support the request made in our petition.  In a letter of August 4th [2006], the Minister wrote regarding the Infants Act:

This law is consistent with the common law or legislation in other provinces, and has been upheld by the courts of BC as being in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 

The Court of Appeal for BC has stated that when a child is determined to be a “mature minor”, only the minor—not his or her parents—can give consent.  However, the court also added “that is not to say that the parents may not be involved in the process of the informed consent of the child.  They should be involved as part of that process wherever possible.”

If a situation arises where it is evident that a physician has not taken his or her duties under section 17 of the Act seriously, this could result in a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC or possibly a


In response to this letter from the Minister of Health we wrote the following in a letter dated October 8th, 2006:

We appreciate your directly responding to the request of the petition which our letter was written to support.  However, we find the present state of the law to be most unsatisfactory.  Whether or not such a law is deemed permissible by the courts, the current wording of the Infants Act was determined by the provincial legislature, and needs to be remedied by that body. It is not enough for the law to determine that the parents of a minor may be involved in the consent of the child or that they should be involved wherever possible in determining the medical treatment of a minor.  The law should be altered to state that the parents of a child should have the prior right in determining his or her health care except in case of emergency, as we have stated.  It is not good enough to say that a parent has recourse to complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC or to a lawsuit.   Such processes would likely be lengthy, costly, and probably futile in the face of the fact that the law gives a “health care provider” prior right to determine the health care of a minor. 

But to implicitly classify* parents as incompetent and a danger to their offspring is unconscionable.

The usual example given to justify not requiring the notification or consent of a minor’s parents in the case of a proposed abortion is that of irate parents who will do physical or psychological harm to their pregnant daughter.   But laws such as the current Infants Act of British Columbia treat all parents as being like that.  In contrast, the Infants Act treats a single health care provider as being more competent to judge the maturity of the parents’ child than they are, and gives him over-riding authority in the matter.   A health-care worker, surely, is able to contact a minors’ parents, and even have them meet with him and the minor.   If there is real evidence of danger to the minor from her parents, legal methods are surely available, including setting up a temporary guardianship.   

But to implicitly classify* parents as incompetent and a danger to their offspring is unconscionable.

We again ask that the provincial government reverse the injustice in the Infants Act, and return to parents the right to know a child’s medical situation and to give their loving cousel, and we ask that the government return to parents the prior right to determine their minor children’s health care.

 We would appreciate it if government ministers, after giving careful consideration to the matters discussed in this meeting, sent us a written response.


* The written form of the presentation had "all .parents,' but this was modified in the oral presentation.
Note:  The bold-faced lines were sections particularly emphasized in the oral presentation.



Immensely Popular Quebec Folk Song Laments Abortion and the Modern Culture of Sterility
Song is one of the most frequently downloaded iTunes in Canada

By Elizabeth O’Brien

MONTREAL, June 25, 2007 ( – One of the most frequently downloaded iTunes in Canada, a French-language song entitled “Dégénerations,” vividly portrays a woman’s sorrow and pain after having an abortion.

Written by the Quebec folk-rock band, “Mes Aïeux” (My Ancestors), the song compares the simple, yet fruitful lifestyle of “ton arrière-arrière-grand-père” (or “your great-great-grandfather”) to the stress and sterility of modern day life. Mirroring this idea, the music starts with a simple drum beat that gradually accelerates to an almost frantic gallop.

Using specific examples, the song describes how life becomes empty and unnatural when it is severed from one’s land and heritage. Verse three, for example, shows the contrast between how, “Your great great grandmother, she had 14 kids,” whereas “Your mom didn’t want any, you were an accident.”

The song also relates how each generation is growing increasingly hostile to life. In verse four, it addresses the present generation and specifically refers to abortion as a traumatizing mistake for a woman.

The French lyrics run as follows:

“Et pis toi, ma p’tite fille, tu changes de partenaire tout l’temps
Quand tu fais des conneries, tu t’en sauves en avortant.”
“Mais y’a des matins, tu te réveilles en pleurant
Quand tu rêves la nuit d’une grande table entourée d’enfants.”

Roughly translated into English, the words say:

“Now you, my little lady, change partners all the time
When you screw up you save yourself by aborting
But there are mornings when you awake crying
When you dream in the night of a large table surrounded by little ones.”

The song title is a play on words that signifies not only the passing of generations, but the moral degeneration as well. Since the 1960’s, Quebec has been steadily moving away from its Catholic heritage, and the province’s birthrate is now one of the lowest in the Western world. As a consequence Quebec is predicted to experience a 50% decline in its GDP within the next decade.

Nevertheless, only last year 10,000 young Québecois Catholics—the “true army of 10,000 fervent Catholics” according to Journal de Québec—gathered in Quebec City to celebrate the 11th anniversary of Evangelization 2000. Such an indication of revival had not occurred in Quebec for over twenty years (see

Another sign of increasing cultural awareness, Mes Aïeux’s album “En Famille” (With the Family), featuring “Dégénerations”, won a Félix Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album in 2005. By December of the next year, “En Famille” sold 200,000 copies and was certified double platinum.

See the “Dégénerations” song video on YouTube (English Subtitles):




Please thank the Canadian Medical Association
 for upholding conscience protection for doctors.

[The following letter was sent out by Physicians for Life. and passed on to us on May 14th, 2007.]

Dear Pro-Life Friends,

The National Post recently reported that the National Abortion Federation is lobbying the Canadian Medical Association to remove its "conscientious objector policy, which allows physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions," saying that doctors should put the interests of women seeking abortion before their own "religious and moral convictions." (See article copied at the end of this email, "Doctors asked to change national abortion policy," by Melissa Leong, National Post, May 10, 2007).
Currently, the CMA's abortion policy allows doctors to refuse to make an abortion referral when such would violate their religious / conscientious beliefs. The director of ethics at CMA, Dr. Jeff Blackmer, recently clarified CMA's position in the April 24, 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) after the CMA's policy was misrepresented in a guest editorial in the CMAJ last July by lawyers Sanda Rodgers and Jocelyn Downie who claimed that doctors who refuse to refer for abortion are committing "malpractice." Dr. Blackmer's letter of clarification was reprinted in the National Post on May 5 (see below).
However, according to an earlier story in the National Post, Dr. Blackmer has said that "a huge groundswell from the membership one way or another" could force a reevaluation of CMA's abortion policy. ('The "A" word: How did abortion, that most contentious of issues, become one that is simply not discussed publicly?" by Anne Marie Owens, National Post, Saturday, May 5, 2007). Within 5 days of that report, we hear that the National Abortion Federation is lobbying CMA to change its policy to take away a physician's right to freedom of conscience and religion.
What can be done:
If CMA's policy were to be changed so that doctors were compelled to make abortion referrals against their conscientious / religious beliefs, Canada may one day find itself without any practicing pro-life doctors. Canadian Physicians for Life is already in dialogue with the CMA, the CMAJ, and CPL's membership regarding this issue (and has been ever since the offending guest editorial was published in the CMAJ in July 2006).  But if you, as a member of the Canadian pro-life public, are also concerned about the pressure that is currently being put on pro-life doctors to participate directly or indirectly in an abortion, please consider writing to Dr. Blackmer and to the president of CMA, Dr. Colin McMillan, the president-elect, Dr. Brian Day, and the editor-in-chief of the CMAJ, Dr. Paul Hebert, THANKING them for upholding and clarifying the CMA's abortion policy, while politely asking that the protections for doctors with respect to freedom of conscience be strengthened.
Contact info for CMA/CMAJ:
Dr. Jeff Blackmer, Executive Director, Office of Ethics (email:
Dr. Colin McMillan, President (email:
Dr. Dr. Brian Day, President-Elect (email:
Dr. Paul Hebert, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal, (email:
You might also consider copying your letter to the National Post: ;
After you send your letter to CMA/CMAJ, we'd appreciate it if you could forward a copy of it on to us at so that we have some idea of how pro-life Canadians are reacting to this issue. Thank you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Barbara McAdorey (Administrator), on behalf of the board of
Canadian Physicians for Life
PO Box 1289
Ottawa ON  K0A 2Z0
ph/fax: 613-728-LIFE(5433)
Doctors asked to change national abortion policy

 Melissa Leong
National Post

Thursday, May 10, 2007

An abortion rights group has launched a challenge of the Canadian
policy governing the way physicians respond to abortion requests,
adding their voice to an ongoing and divisive debate in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

The National Abortion Federation, a U.S.-based association of abortion
providers which also represents health care professionals in Canada,
sent a letter yesterday to the Canadian Medical Association, calling on
it to change its so-called conscientious objector policy, which allows
physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions. It is the first
time the federation has tried to lobby the CMA on this issue.

The federation says the policy jeopardizes women's access to publicly
funded health care."We're hearing from women across Canada and from our
providers that this is a problem," said Vicki Saporta, president and
CEO of the National Abortion Federation. "It has reached a critical
mass that many women are upset that they haven't been able to get
referrals from their physicians."

The CMA now finds itself in between the federation and the Canadian
Physicians for Life, an organization that wants the medical association
to strengthen its policy to further protect physicians who do not want
to participate in abortion services.

"The CMA's policy on induced abortion does not violate our Code of
Ethics ... Nor does it treat women unfairly or impede their access to
critical health care," CMA President Dr. Colin McMillan said,
responding to the abortion federation in a written statement.

The CMA's abortion policy was passed in 1988 and is "re-confirmed"
every year, most recently in February, he said."Now is not the time for
us to be weakening the conscience protection for health care workers
with the huge changes we are facing with technological capabilities,"
said Dr. Williard Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and president
of the Canadian Physicians for Life.

"Now is the time to be strengthening conscience protections so that
people who find themselves uncomfortable with procedures should have
their rights protected."

Ms. Saporta argued that physicians must put their patients' interests
ahead of their "own religious and moral convictions." Refusing to refer
women for abortions could result in delays and lead to women having
later abortions at an increased risk to their health, she said.

"It is not within the control of the physician who doesn't want to
participate, how much longer the delay will be," Dr. Johnston
countered. "That is entirely the responsibility of the system at large."

The issue has attracted fervent debate from both sides, with people
flooding the Canadian Medical Association Journal with letters
following a guest editorial published last year that misstated the CMA
policy as it urged physicians to ensure access to abortion. The journal
had to print a clarification of its policy on abortion last month to
try to stem the letter-writing.

Dr. Jeff Blackmer, the CMA's ethics officer, suggested to the National
Post in an earlier interview that only a few things would force a
re-evaluation of the policy: a groundswell from the membership one way
or another, a legislative review of the issue by the government or a
significant decrease in access to abortions.

Last month, advocates for access to abortion released a report that
said abortion services were less accessible in Canada than they were
three years ago. The study found that only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals
provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8% that occurred without
any change in official regulations or policies.

The issue of access will go before the court later this month: the
Morgentaler Clinic is suing the government of New Brunswick over
provincial regulations that insist hospital abortions be performed by a
gynecologist, be approved first by the gynecologist and another doctor,
and does not cover the cost of abortions in clinics.

CMA clarifies its position on induced abortion

National Post

Published: Saturday, May 05, 2007

Clarification of the CMA's position concerning induced abortion. Jeff Blackmer, executive director, office of ethics, Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa, Ont. A recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and subsequent letters to the editor have raised several questions about the Canadian Medical Association's position on induced abortion. I would like to clarify that position with this illustrative case. Case: You are a family physician practising at a community health care centre. A 25-year-old patient recently had a positive pregnancy test and estimates that she is seven weeks' pregnant. She asks if you will perform a therapeutic abortion. If not, will you refer her right away to someone who will perform it? You are morally opposed to abortion. What are your obligations to this patient?

Discussion: CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "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." You should therefore advise the patient that you do not provide abortion services. You should also indicate that because of your moral beliefs, you will not initiate a referral to another physician who is willing to provide this service (unless there is an emergency). However, you should not interfere in any way with this patient's right to obtain the abortion. At the patient's request, you should also indicate alternative sources where she might obtain a referral. This is in keeping with the obligation spelled out in the CMA policy: "There should be no delay in the provision of abortion services." Editor's note: We received a large number of letters in response to the editorial by Rodgers and Downie, with particular regard to the CMA's policy on induced abortion. We asked the CMA to clarify their position using a case-based example, which they have provided here. We will not publish any further letters on this topic, unless they present new information or state a new position on this matter. From Canadian Medical Association Journal


Canadian March for Life Hits New Attendance Level of 7,000 With 75% Youth

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, May 11, 2007 ( - This year's March for Life, the 10th annual march organized yearly by Campaign Life Coalition drew a record 7,000 participants and was populated mainly with youth, estimated at around 75% of the crowd. The rally began with speeches by various Members of Parliament, who told the assembled crowd how encouraged they were with the presence of so many young people determined to fight for the right to life of unborn children.

Wheel-chair bound, and witty Frank Mountain, the President of Campaign Life Ottawa, and the chief organizer of the March gave a special introduction to the daughter of new Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux. Elizabeth Lemieux, a dynamic, young and spirited pro-life activist who was the motivating force behind her father's entrance into politics. Elizabeth addressed the crowd with vigour spurring her youthful companions to enthusiasm.

Former Liberal MP and now life and family activist Pat O'Brien addressed the crowd introducing MPs who made brief comments. In addition to Lemieux, Conservatives, Maurice Vellacott, Jeff Watson, Mark Warawa, Myron Thompson, James Lunney, David Anderson, Dean Del Mastro, Rod Bruinooge, and Cheryl Gallant were in attendance. Liberals included Paul Szabo and Paul Steckle, with both Tom Wappell and Andrew Sheer not able to attend as they were then engaged in parliamentary duties.  [boldfaced by editor of this BCPTL website].

In addition to the Members of Parliament, Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition, Fr. Frank Pavone founder of Priests for Life USA, Janet Morana and Angelina Steenstra from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, and many others addressed the crowd both before and after the march.

The pace of the marchers was noticeably faster as chanting groups of teens led the crowd, wearing matching pro-life t-shirts and waving signs and banners. A drummer kept beat with a favorite pro-life chant repeated again and again by school groups up and down the line. A large contingent of Knights of Columbus in full regalia was an eye-catching presence.

Canadian Catholic novelist Michael O'Brien walked through the crowd with this reporter and had these reflections to share after the march. "I felt an infusion of tremendous new hope," he said. He described the majority of participants as being "young and vitally motivated." He also noted an "increased number of Catholic and Orthodox priests in evidence." Concluding he said, "The issue of abortion is not going away and in fact this new generation is more motivated than ever."

The editor of Canada's national pro-life newspaper The Interim, Paul Tuns, told that he travelled to and from the March with a busload of students from St. Michael's College, a Catholic high school in Toronto.

"The students were excited when we went home on the bus," recalls Tuns. "The mood was upbeat," he said, "I feel reinvigorated." Tuns' son Patrick is the President of the pro-life club at St. Mike's and the proud father notes that the numbers from the school in attendance at the March this year doubled from last year with a full busload of 46. "Next year they're planning two buses," he added.

Several of the March participants noted the fact that weather forecasts for Ottawa Thursday promised a thunderstorm, but no rain materialized. "It seems that every year it looks like rain, but its always beautiful weather," said Paul Tuns, chalking it up to "providence" rather than coincidence.



May 3, 2007
President to Reid, Pelosi: Vetoes for Any Pro-Abortion Legislation

President Bush sent identical letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Thursday making it absolutely clear to the pro-abortion Democrats that he will veto any legislation aimed at weakening pro-life policies or laws.

In the letter, the president said he wanted "to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of my views on these important issues."

Click here to read his letter. (This document is in PDF format, and requires the free Adobe Reader to view.)

 [From a CitizenLink article]


One-Quarter of UK GPs Refusing to Give Abortion Referrals

[From "Women 'Facing Abortion Lottery' " online in Life Style Extra, May 3, 2007 ]

A quarter of GPs are refusing to send women for abortions because they believe the practice is unethical, it emerged today.

The study by leading GP magazine Pulse found one in five GPs did not believe abortion should be legal, and a quarter of the 309 surveyed said they would not sign forms referring patients to abortion clinics.

GPs also expressed concern over a 24-week limit, with more than half wanting it reduced.

One GP was so incensed by having to sign the abortion referral forms that he quit his Wiltshire practise in 2004.

Dr Rob Hardie, who refused to sign a new GP code of conduct, said: "With abortion, there’s the ethical problem of destroying a life, and even if you have different beliefs, there’s surely an ethical problem in doctors being forced to do something that they do not believe in.

"It’s immoral and unjust. So it’s fantastic to see young doctors making a stand against this – not just Catholics but other Christians and Muslims too."

But pro-abortionists accused doctors who would not refer patients of 'playing God', and said legislation should be changed so that women don't require referral forms from a doctor to have an abortion.

[Click here to read the whole article.]

April 18, 2007  Focus CitizenLink Update
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

. . . .

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act -- which Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 -- does not violate a woman’s right to an abortion, as several federal courts had ruled.

The ban takes effect immediately.

“Today, the Supreme Court takes the scalpel out of the hands of abortionists who would brutally and fatally puncture the skulls of babies who are just inches and moments away from birth,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics for Focus on the Family Action.


Idaho Parental-Consent Bill Approved in Senate

From ""
Feb. 27, 2007

The Idaho Senate passed a bill Monday that would require minors to obtain written consent from at least one parent prior to an abortion, reported.

Kerry Uhlenkott, legislative director for Idaho Right to Life, called the 23-12 vote a "huge victory" for Idaho parents and their daughters.

Uhlenkott is optimistic the bill will also pass the House.

Republican Sen. Russ Fulcher, lead sponsor of the bill, said it addresses issues in a law that was declared unconstitutional.

"We had a number of attorneys who have worked on this," he said.


Samantha Shrugged    BARRY MICHAELS [from the Catholic Education Resource Centre]

I teach eleventh-grade religion at a respected and flourishing Catholic college-prep high school in the state of New York. My students are bright and talented kids, the children of some of the most successful people in this part of the state. Our discussions on morality are a window into the culture that nurtures them at least as much as most of their families do. We recently tackled abortion.


A few students tried to make abortion a feminist issue, but interestingly, only a very few. Most, including the young women, react to the idea of feminism with disdain and jokes, and some girls asserted that women would be expected to be more pro-life than men because they’re the ones with the maternal instincts. Note to NOW: Your message has missed the youth, at least the ones living in the area that gave birth to the American feminist movement.

A few others defended abortion as a necessary means of birth control or even population control. But the most prominent line of thinking by far was, well, not thinking. When presented with the facts of fetal development or abortion methods or ethical reasoning, student after student preferred either comfortable unawareness or bold-faced denial of plain fact.

That’s a strong assertion to make. Examples are in order.

Student Preferences

The first sign of what was to come appeared on the first day of class discussion, as one student (I’ve changed all names below) tried to dismiss moral objections to abortion.

Steve: It’s not like we’re talking about a living person here.
What do you mean?
Well, the heart doesn’t even start beating until it’s like five months along.
Five months?
Actually, it’s more like three weeks.
No way. That’s not true.

Now, every one of these college-bound juniors covered fetal development in ninth-grade biology. Consider another student’s assertion.

Craig: Until it [the unborn baby] comes out, it’s not alive. It’s dead.
And what do you base that statement on?

If charity suggested I chalk all this up to (profound) ignorance and misinformation, Samantha left no doubt about what lay beneath them. In the midst of yet another discussion of basic fetology, this honor student spoke up.

Samantha: Yes, but what science says doesn’t matter.
(silent, unsure of an appropriate response to such an assertion)
Just because something is true doesn’t mean you have to believe it.
Okay. (I write her last sentence on the board so it’s plain as day.) Are you sure that’s the argument you want to make to defend a right to abortion?
Sure. I can go through my life denying what science says is true. I have that right.
Yes, I guess you can. I can refuse to believe, for example, that the world is round. I can insist it’s flat.
But can that kind of thinking ever become the foundation of our laws, even if some unreasonable folks want to base their personal decisions on it? If we do, laws just become a matter of who has the power, not what’s right and true. Laws would simply be what the lawmaker wants them to be, for his own convenience. If the ones making the law want to say wife-beating is okay, then that’s the law; it doesn’t matter if it’s “true” that women are people and have rights. Or Hitler can have his concentration camps. Or America can have black slaves. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it, because (the lawmaker says) just because something is true doesn’t mean I have to believe it.

Samantha shrugged.

These are not the only instances of my students’ rejection of rational thought or willful denial of plain reality. When I responded to one girl’s objection that we can’t make laws based on morality by pointing out that we criminalize rape and murder and stealing for moral reasons, she told me, “Yes, but those are different. In those cases, you’re hurting someone else.”

Student Thought

At another point, I was briefly describing the methods of abortion. One girl raised her hand and asked, “Is this just a scare tactic for us?” I asked her what she meant, and she responded, “Well, why are you only telling us about the bad ways that it’s done?” The denial of reality extends even to the belief that there could actually be a pleasant procedure that might result in a dead baby.

In the end, this explanation of abortion procedures was the one topic we covered during our chapter that actually seemed to cause my students to stop and think.

In the end, this explanation of abortion procedures was the one topic we covered during our chapter that actually seemed to cause my students to stop and think. Even though I did my research using both purely medical and explicitly “pro-choice” materials, in order to avoid the criticism of intentionally presenting the information in a way that makes abortion sound terrible, I watched students grimace and frown as I explained the methods used at various stages of pregnancy.

When I completed the lesson and asked for questions, one hand went up.

“Why would anyone want to be a doctor who gives abortions?” the young man asked. “Who would do that?”

Before I could say anything, the student sitting next to the questioner beat me to an answer. “Someone without a soul,” he said. To my amazement, I suddenly saw half of the group, these kids who had been arguing with me for two weeks that nothing should stand in the way of unlimited access to abortion, nod their heads.

My intention is not to pick on a few teens unwilling to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Their comments are a window into middle- and upper-class American life. They reflect the way the abortion issue is thought about and discussed by their parents, their peers, their legislators, and the media, which is for them and many of the rest of us the very cultural air we breathe.

The utter denial of scientific realities (I lost count of how many times I heard the phrase “clump of cells” during our discussions) and the rejection of rational thought — these things are there because they’re the only way to justify the approach to abortion currently taken in American law. Neither biological insights nor logical consistency is important. Convenience is. Taking science or reason into account would necessarily mean changing the laws.

Or maybe not. After all, just because something is true doesn’t mean you have to believe it.


Barry Michaels. "Samantha Shrugged." Touchstone (September, 2006): 23-25.

This article reprinted with permission from Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom — Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. The mission of the journal and its publisher, the Fellowship of St. James, is to provide a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief and the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church. 
Copyright © 2006 Touchstone






Pro-Life Nurse Refuses to Assist in Abortion of Down Syndrome Child

From --Dec. 18, 2006] 

from staff reports

As hospitals strong-arm health-care professionals to adopt abortion-friendly policies, one nurse is hailed a hero for clinging to her pro-life beliefs.

If you have ever wondered what difference one person can make, consider Mary Bauer. At 48, she changed careers, got a degree in nursing and accepted a position in the labor and delivery unit at a Chicago hospital. But it’s what happened on her first day of work -- and her reaction to it -- that really set Bauer apart.

Fresh from orientation and looking forward to her new job, Bauer was told she would be assisting in the abortion of a 22-week-old preborn baby with Down syndrome.

"I just told them, ‘I can’t take that patient. I’m very pro-life. I cannot participate in any way, shape or form. I just can’t do it, so I need an alternate assignment," Bauer said.

She went home that night, unsure of whether she would keep her job, and did two things. First, she requested prayer from friends; and second, she began researching Illinois law. Bauer said she found two statutes that protect the right of a health-care worker to object on moral grounds.

She went back to work and told her co-workers that they had the right to say no.

"They never knew they had a choice," Bauer told Family News in Focus, "and they said, ‘We’ve never had a choice. We always thought this was part of our job and we had to do it.' "

Part of her prayer was answered. The hospital adopted a policy to protect workers from being forced to take part in morally objectionable tasks. But Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, said not everyone has such a happy ending.  [Click here to read the whole story on CitizenLink.]


Pro-Abortion University Group Retracts Slander Against Pro-Life Group After Lawsuit Threat

OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 ( - Shawn Menard, the president of Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA), has acknowledged the falsity of his previous public statements regarding the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform's (CCBR) Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). Tuesday on CFRA radio, the station on which Menard slandered GAP last week, he broadcast that his comments about the GAP denying the Holocaust were "unequivocally false."

"Only once we threatened to sue did Mr. Menard make a public retraction," said Stephanie Gray, executive director of CCBR. On behalf of CUSA, Menard also submitted his retraction to The Charlatan campus newspaper as CCBR demanded. In his letter, he said that his declaration about GAP was "an error on my part." In order to avoid a lawsuit, CUSA must satisfy one final requirement by this Friday: the publication of the retraction on CUSA's website with a link to it from CUSA's homepage.

Gray continued, "We refuse to take abuse. When people defame us and our reputation, we will confront them. Mr. Menard's response shows that when we demand accountability for public statements, those who slander us will have to back down."

The GAP is a graphic display that visually compares aborted human beings to victims of other atrocities, such as Jews during the Holocaust. Far from denying the Holocaust, as Menard falsely claimed, the GAP not only acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred, it condemns the event as a grave injustice.

Canadian University Student Association Charged with Slander Against Pro-life Group; Faces Lawsuit

CALGARY, December 4, 2006 ( - The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) threatened to sue the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) last Thursday because of slander. CUSA's president Shawn Menard was quoted on CFRA radio in Ottawa on November 29 as saying, "The Genocide Awareness Project, as you know, is a group that talks about the fact that the Holocaust did not happen."

"Mr. Menard has made a slanderous statement and we demand an unambiguous retraction and apology," said Stephanie Gray, executive director of the anti-abortion CCBR. "If Mr. Menard and CUSA do not make amends, we will file suit against them."

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), a project of the CCBR, is a graphic display that visually compares aborted human beings to victims of other atrocities, such as Jews during the Holocaust.

"We most certainly acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and we unequivocally condemn the injustice," said Gray. CCBR's printed materials and website,, ; consistently refer to the Holocaust as an atrocity of great magnitude.

On November 30, Gray sent a letter to Menard demanding an apology and retraction. The following day, Menard sent a brief e-mail to her, writing that he realized afterwards he had made an incorrect statement. However, "Mr. Menard offered no apology," said Gray. "We made it clear that he and CUSA had until Friday, December 8 to meet our expectations or we will take legal action."

CCBR expects the following: 1) an unambiguous retraction and apology to its satisfaction, 2) that the statement be submitted for broadcast on the CFRA radio station and in the form of a "Letter to the Editor" of The Charlatan newspaper, and 3) that the statement be placed on CUSA's website,, with a visible link to it from the home page, for the next sixty (60) days.

Gray's colleague, Jose Ruba, was at Carleton University last month to debate abortion against representatives from Planned Parenthood Ottawa and Canadians for Choice. In his remarks he applauded the actions of a woman, Corrie ten Boom, who risked her life to hide Jews and others from the Nazis during World War II.

In fact, Ruba's debate was the impetus for a controversial motion that could result in CUSA affirming a "woman's right to choose" and disallowing CUSA "resources, space, recognition or funding [being] allocated for anti-choice purposes." The controversial motion, first raised November 21, is undergoing some amendments and will be voted on this Tuesday.

Back to Top | Email to a Friend

Autopsy Confirms “Aborted” Baby was Born Alive at Abortion Clinic
Staff member cut the umbilical cord and placed the baby into a red biohazard bag

By Hilary White

MIAMI, December 4, 2006 ( – An autopsy report has been released by Operation Rescue showing that a baby who died in a Florida abortion mill in July was born alive. Abortion facility staff placed the child still breathing and moving into a plastic medical waste bag.

Hialeah Police had previously stated that they were awaiting the results of an autopsy on the child’s remains before pursuing possible charges.

On July 20, an 18-year old woman went to a for-profit abortion facility owned by Belkis Gonzalez and Siomara Senises. She gave birth to a living baby girl while sitting in a recliner in the facility’s recovery room. The child’s mother, Sycloria Williams told police that she had watched her daughter moving and gasping for air for approximately five minutes.

The Dade County Medical Examiner report dated October 28, said that the baby died of “extreme prematurity” and lists no “contributory cause.” The report lists the “manner of death” as “natural.”

The report says that the child, who has since been named Shanice by her mother, then 22 weeks gestation, was delivered “and placed to the side. A staff member cut the umbilical cord and placed the neonate into a red biohazard bag.”

“Witnesses, including the mother, indicate that the neonate was breathing and moving.” The report says that children born so prematurely have 0% chance of survival.

“It doesn’t matter if Shanice had a 100 percent or a zero percent chance of survival. Once she was born, she was deserving of the same protections under the law as the rest of us,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “At the minimum, she should have been given comfort care. Shoving her into a plastic bag and tossing her onto a roof to die is just unconscionable.”

Read previous coverage:
Baby Girl born alive and killed after surviving late-term abortion

New Environics Poll Confirms that Canadians Support Legal Protection for Unborn

The fifth annual poll on Canadians’ opinions on abortion has found that almost two-thirds of the 2,021 people surveyed by Environics Research Group support laws to protect human life before birth.

Only three in ten support the current Canadian policy in which there is no legal protection for human beings at any stage of development before birth.

The poll was commissioned by LifeCanada, the national educational pro-life group, and includes questions on parental consent for abortion, informed consent and views on tax-funding of abortion.

To continue reading LifeCanada’s press release click here

Click here to see the poll result


Constitutionalized Infanticide
By Jay Sekulow
Monday, November 6, 2006

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments two cases involving Congress’s ban on partial-birth abortion. In both cases, the lower courts of appeals held the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. Those courts are wrong and the Supreme Court should reverse them. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act only applies to the partial-birth abortion of a child that is partly outside the body of the mother. Even under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the ban on partial-birth abortion of a child partly outside the mother’s body is a valid, indeed essential, barrier against the practice of infanticide. None of the Court’s prior abortion cases addressed a procedure that many, including Justices of the Supreme Court, consider to be infanticide. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act operates at the borderline between pre-natal and post-natal human life. Born human children indisputably enjoy the basic rights secured to all “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It, therefore, cannot be doubted that there is a legitimate and even compelling state interest in protecting such children from harm. Hence, governments have a compelling interest in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into that of infanticide. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers precisely that interest. As one judge recently phrased it, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act protects the unborn child’s “emerging right to life” and furthers the “compelling interest in protecting the line between abortion and infanticide.”

Partial-birth abortion procedures represent the beachhead of the assault on post-natal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide. Absent strong legal barriers and vigorous societal condemnation, partial-birth abortion procedures open the way to legal infanticide. As Justice Kennedy noted in the previous partial-birth abortion case out of Nebraska, Stenberg v. Carhart, “States also have an interest in forbidding medical procedures which, in the State’s reasonable determination, might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life, including life in the human fetus.”

Governments—and all their people—therefore have a tremendously important stake in the unqualified prohibition of partial-birth infanticide. The child who “crosses the goal line”—by foot or head—into the realm outside the body of the mother must receive the full protection of law if we are not to abandon, inexorably, the sanctity of post-natal life as well.  . . . .

[Click here to read the whole of the article immediately above article from]


UK Doctors Say Women Should Be Warned of Clear Link Between Abortion, Depression
[Physicians Warn " . . . doctors have a duty to advise about long-term adverse psychological consequences of abortion."]

By Gudrun Schultz

LONDON, United Kingdom, October 30, 2006 ( - New evidence that abortion causes significantly increased risk of mental illness in women cannot be downplayed by the medical profession, a group of leading UK doctors has warned. 

In a letter to The Times, the group of 15 senior obstetricians and psychiatrists cited a recent New Zealand study, published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, that found an increased level of mental health problems after abortions in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Women who have had abortions are twice as likely to have psychological problems and three times as likely to suffer from depression as women who have given birth or never been pregnant, the doctors said.

Women should be warned of the potential risk to their mental health caused by abortion, they stated, and the risk to the mental health of the mother must be a factor in doctors’ decision to approve abortions.

“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 letter stated.

“We suggest the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Psychiatrists revise their guidance and that future abortion notifications clearly distinguish between physical and mental health grounds for abortion.”

The doctors pointed out that the American Psychological Association, while avoiding any official warning of the dangers to mental health caused by abortion, did withdraw an official statement denying a link between abortion and psychological damage, in response to the New Zealand study.

The Times reported that of the more than six million abortions performed in Britain since abortion was legalized in 1967, 95 percent were done on the grounds of the mental or physical health of the mother, or the welfare of existing children.

In related news, The Times reported October 27 on a 44-year-old woman who attempted suicide while suffering from depression and psychosis after she aborted her third child in May, 2000.

Sue Hulbert, mother of two, had planned the pregnancy with her partner but the relationship began to deteriorate soon after and she felt unable to cope with the pregnancy and birth on her own.

She was distraught over the decision to abort the child, the Times reported, but was given no counseling by the abortion staff other than advice that she wait an hour and think about the decision.

“To this day I still don’t know why I did it. I woke up crying and knew I had done the wrong thing and sank into a depression almost straight away,” Hulbert said.

A lecturer in exercise physiology, who describes herself as pro-choice, Hulbert suffered from nightmares and hallucinations after the abortion, and began to fall into debt. Despite going on antidepressants and seeking counseling with the organization British Victims of Abortion, Hulbert took a drug overdose in December 2001, more than 18 months after the abortion.

“I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence,” she said.

After her suicide attempt, she eventually received psychiatric help with support from her family and friends.

Read the UK doctors’ statement in TheTimes online. ]

Message Sent by BC Parents and Teachers for Life to the BC Health Minister
Requesting Mandated Parental Consent for Minors' Health Care

[The following letter, dated July 3rd,  was sent to the Minister of

Hon. George Abbott
Minister of Health
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B. C.
V8V 1X4

Dear Mr. Abbott:

On March 30, 2006, the Hon. Kevin Falcon, on behalf of British Columbia
Parents and Teachers for Life, presented in the legislature a petition
signed by thousands of citizens.  The petiton asked “. . .  that the
Honourable House enact legislation to mandate the consent of an infant’s
parent or guardian before a health care provider arranges health care,
except in the case of a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment when
the consent of a parent or guardian is not available.”

 The background to our petition is as follows:  In spite of great
opposition, the government of the day, in Bill 81-1992-repealed Section 16
of the Infants Act, R..S.B.C. 1979, c. 196, and substituted new wording .
This new wording of Section 16 gave power to a "health care provider" to
arrange medical treatment of an infant without obtaining a consent to the
health care from an infant's parent or guardian. The Infants Act still
contains the wording adopted in 1993. It is now embodied in the Infants Act
[R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 223, Part 2, Section 17.

Mr. Abbott, will you support the change we have requested to restore the
rights of parents in this important matter?    We would appreciate your
response at your earliest convenience.

August 4, 2006, Reply from the British Columbia Health Minister  
to the Above Letter


Response of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life 
to B.C. Minister of Health's Letter of August 4th

BC Parents and Teachers for Life has sent a response (dated October 8, 2006) to the Minister of Health's August 4th letter (above) justifying the present situation in which parents' permission is not required for minors' "health care" (including abortion).   The message in the BC Parents and Teachers for life letter to the Hon. George Abbott is given below:

Thank you for your letter of August 4th responding to ours of July 3rd, in which we asked “. . . that the Honourable House enact legislation to mandate the consent of an infant’s parent or guardian before a health care provider arranges health care, except in the case of a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment when the consent of a parent or guardian is not available.”

 We appreciate your directly responding to the request of the petition which our letter was written to support.  However, we find the present state of the law to be most unsatisfactory.  Whether or not such a law is deemed permissible by the courts, the current wording of the Infants Act was determined by the provincial legislature, and needs to be remedied by that body.

 It is not enough for the law to determine that the parents of a minor may be involved in the consent of the child or that they should be involved wherever possible in determining the medical treatment of a minor.  The law should be altered to state that the parents of a child should have the prior right in determining his or her health care except in case of emergency, as we have stated.  It is not good enough to say that a parent has recourse to complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC or to a lawsuit.   Such processes would likely be lengthy, costly, and probably futile in the face of the fact that the law gives a “health care provider” prior right to determine the health care of a minor.

We continue to seek the alteration of the Infants’ Act to recognize the proper role of parents in determining the health care of minors.

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Petition for Mandated Parental Consent for Youth Health-Care Referrals Presented to Legislature

BC Parents and Teachers for Life has received word that a petition we turned in over two years ago was presented to the legislature on March 30, 2006.  

The petition, after summarizing the effect of the current Infants Act, read, “Your petitioners respectfully request that the Honourable House enact legislation to mandate the consent of an infant’s parent or guardian before a health care provider arranges health care, except in the case of a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment when the consent of the parent or guardian is not available."  

We feel that the peition ought to be supported by parents whether or not they are pro-life.  At the same time, where such laws mandating parental consent have been passed in other jurisdictions, they have reportedly resulted in a reduction in the number of abortions.

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life would like to see a renewed drive to seek enactment of the legislation requested in the petition.  We are asking all other pro-life groups  in the province, as well as individuals,  to join with us in this effort at this time by writing to the provincial Minister of Health and Minister of Education , with a copy to the Premier, requesting the parental consent legislation that thousands of British Columbians supported by signing our petition.  Letters from individuals to their local legislative representatives are also needed.

See the external provincial government web page "Legislative Assembly of British Columbia:  Contact Information" for a means of contacting MLAs, including cabinet ministers.

Below is contact information for the Premier, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Education.

Hon. Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia

E-mail: or

Room 156
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Phone: 250 387-1715

Fax: 250 387-0087

3615 West 4th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V6R 1P2

Phone: 604 660-3202

Fax: 604 660-5488


Hon. George Abbott,  Minister of Health

Web site:

Room 337
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Phone: 250 953-3547

Fax: 250 356-9587

202A-371 Alexander Street NE
Box 607
Salmon Arm, BC
V1E 4N7 

Phone: 250 833-7414

Fax: 250 833-7422

Toll-free: 1 877 771-7557


Hon. Shirley Bond, 
Minister of Education, Deputy Premier and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

Web site:

Room 248
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4 

Phone: 250 387-1977

Fax: 250 387-3200





1350 5th Avenue
Prince George, BC
V2L 3L4

Phone: 250 612-4181

Fax: 250 612-4188


Featured Guest Article:
The Revenge of the Aborted?
By Stephen Gray
Canadian families do not make babies like they used to. A dramatic decline in fertility in recent decades, combined with an aging population, has the potential to transform every aspect of Canadian society, from schools and housing to social attitudes toward family.”1
Recently in the National Post there were four articles over four days examining the dearth of a younger generation in Canada. Nowhere in these articles was the issue of abortion raised as a factor in this issue of a “childless culture.” Instead we saw the words “low fertility” used to describe the lack of a younger generation. Abortion in Canada surely has had a role in the cause of “low fertility” and less children going to school.
“With Canadian families producing fewer babies than ever, school officials in every province have to figure out what to do with thousands of empty classrooms built for Baby Boomers and their children but left vacant by the generation that is following in much smaller 
The issue of schools closing in some places was raised because of declining enrollment. Yet, the teachers unions are on record as favoring abortion. We are also told there is a scarcity of skilled workers, and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC), which claims to speak for all its members, is on record as supporting “choice” on abortion. One could argue that trade unions which depend on a constant supply of new members are in fact cutting their own throats by supporting the killing of the child in the womb under the banner of “choice.” Are they in fact supporting the killing off of future members?
There are over 100,000 abortions a year in Canada. If one goes back to the year 1992 where there were 102,085 [3] abortions and this number has been increasing yearly ever since, one could say on average from 1992 until 2005 we have killed off at least 1.3 million innocent lives that would have gone to school, perhaps been future union members and future taxpayers in society.
Now governments at the provincial and federal levels are raising the alarm about having an imbalance of elderly people and more retirees, which will put more strain on our healthcare system. “In less than a decade, seniors will outnumber children in Canada; in just 15 years, deaths may outnumber births.”4 So what will the solution be if “deaths outnumber births”? How will society deal with the “problem” of too many seniors many of whom could be retired and in poor health? We have seen the issue of euthanasia being raised recently in parliament, but of course that is only for people who want to die. And of course euthanasia could never be “acceptable.” Could it? Well, at one time abortion was considered a heinous crime, and those who practiced it were considered pariahs. Now the abortionists are hailed as “practitioners” of “choice.” And the killing of the child in the womb is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency as a “right.” So will it be “expedient” to exercise “choice” on our burgeoning elderly population and call it “death with dignity”? After all, when the killing of the child in the womb is now “normal” who is to say that killing people out of the womb and in the “golden years” of their lives could not also become “normal.”
There is an old and wise saying, “We reap what we sow.” Over the last number of years we have sown death in Canada through abortion. Society’s acceptance of abortion has given credence to the idea that parents can kill their unborn children if they are deemed to be unwanted. Now, some born children may start killing their parents if they believe them to be unwanted. Could this be called the revenge of the aborted?
Stephen Gray
February 25, 2006
[Click here to go to Stephen Gray's website.]


WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- A social science teacher of Solebury School in New Hope, Pennsylvania, took more than a dozen teenagers on a field trip from the school to the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Warminster on Friday, Sept. 29, where they spent several hours inside the clinic.

"This is outrageous," said attorney Stephen G. Peroutka, who is also Chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center, (NPLAC), on Capitol Hill, "Why would somebody take children out of school and to an abortion business? Why would anybody think that was good for kids? Whoever did-- shouldn't be teaching, and the school should be investigated and the administrator fired."

Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck , Executive Director of NPLAC" had this to say: "A school excursion into the bowels of an abortion mill is a stark illustration of why the Senate let down American families by failing to pass legislation prohibiting anyone from taking a school-aged child to an abortionist without parental consent. This was an inexplicable and inexcusable act."



Wife of Chinese Forced Abortion Opponent Hauled in for 9 Hours of Questioning

SHUANGHOU, Shnagdong, China, October 4, 2006 ( - Human Rights in China (HRIC) has learned that Yuan Weijing, the wife of blind activist Chen Guangcheng, was stopped and detained by police in Linyi City, Shandong Province, on October 3 where she and her daughter were in transit on the way to her parents' home for the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Sources in China told HRIC that Yuan Weijing left her house at 7am on October 3 with her one-year-old daughter. Shortly after leaving her home, Yuan was followed by five or six individuals. At approximately 9am, they arrived in Linyi City and planned to transfer to another bus to get to Linshu, but they were stopped by the police. Among the group of police were two deputy Party secretaries from Shuanghou Township, Yinan County named Zhang Jian and Yu Mingjiang. After stopping Yuan Weijing's bus, they announced "[you are] summoned according to Article 91 of the Criminal Procedural Law," and then forced her into the police car. Yuan Weijing had previously been summoned for interrogation on July 10 and July 20 this year.

After Yuan Weijing was taken to the Shuanghou Township police station, the policemen told her, "Neither the city nor county approve of your visit [to your parents' home]. If you insist on going there, we may arrest you, and, just like Chen Guangcheng, you will bear the consequences of that decision. It won't be good for your parents, either." According to sources, the Chief of the Shuanghou Township police station was present through the whole process. Yuan Weijing was held at the police station where she was taunted and threatened. She was finally released at 6pm that evening.

Since Chen Guangcheng was taken into custody on March 11, Yuan Weijing has been reportedly kept under 24-hour surveillance by the police. She is followed whenever she goes out, even when shopping for groceries. After learning of Yuan Weijing's plan to visit her parents two days ago, police increased the number of guards outside her house. It has been over a year since she last visited her parents on August 20, 2005, where her three-year-old son also lives.

After Chen Guangcheng was charged with "deliberately damaging property and gathering a mob to disrupt traffic" in mid-June, his hearing was delayed until August 18, 2006. Chen was represented by court-appointed lawyers after police detained three members of his defense time the night before his trial. On August 24, 2006, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment.

Chen Guangcheng is appealing the judgment. After numerous attempts, Chen's two lawyers, Li Fangping and Li Jingsong, were finally able to meet with him. On September 28, they were notified by the Linyi City Intermediate People's Court that Chen's appeal hearing would be closed.

Yuan Weijing noted that this kind of operating behind closed doors only demonstrated that the Linyi City authorities were afraid to allow public scrutiny of the evidence and judicial process, and that if the facts were made public it would prove Chen's innocence.

HRIC has condemned the harassment of Chen Guangcheng and his family and urges the international community to condemn the ongoing crack down on and intimidation of numerous other human rights defenders in China, including Three Gorges Activist Fu Xiancai and rights defense lawyers Gao Zhisheng and Guo Feixiong. HRIC has also called on the Linyi City Intermediate People's Court to afford a full, fair and open appeal hearing for Chen Guangcheng.





Quebec Court Forces Province to Pay All Fees at Private Abortion Mills
Government Must Pay $13 Million to Women Who Have Had Abortions

By John-Henry Westen

MONTREAL, August 18, 2006 ( - On August 17th 2006, Madam Justice Nicole Bénard of the Quebec Superior Court ordered the Government of Quebec to pay over $13,000,000 to Quebec women who had to pay extra fees for abortions at private centres since May 2, 1999. The Court granted a class action lawsuit by the pro-abortion activist association known as the Association for Access to Abortion.

The province already paid for all abortion procedures in hospitals and even for the abortion procedure offered by abortionists in private practice, however it did not pay the extra fee charged by private abortion mills which usually amounted to $300.  Private abortion businesses such as the Morgentaler clinic claimed the fee was due to their superior services.

Justice Bénard concluded that abortion on demand at taxpayer expense was not good enough, and that the government must also spend taxpayer dollars on covering the extra fees demanded for abortions at private centres.  Bénard found that the Quebec Government violated its own legislation ensuring abortion access since the procedure is covered under the province's Health Insurance Act.

Luc Gagnon, the President of the Quebec division of Campaign Life Coalition (Campagne Quebec Vie) told that the ruling is "a complete scandal."  It is, he said, "going further and further to enrich abortionists with taxpayer money."

Gagnon explained, "We already pay for the so called surgical act of killing those children, we will now have to pay for the surplus the private abortionists take as well." He concluded that the decision was evidence of the "shameless collaboration between abortionists and the judicial system."

See the full ruling online (in French):


Professor of Law Prophesies the Universal Imposition of Abortion “Rights” and the Death of National Sovereignty
Barring a Concerted Pro-Life Effort in the UN

By John Jalsevac

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN June 1, 2006 ( - Even as pro-life and pro-family advocates across the world are focusing their energies and resources in the fight against so-called abortion “rights” on the national level, a powerful international effort to circumvent the law-codes of independent, sovereign nations is ongoing. This effort, spearheaded by the worldwide legal academia is seeking with increasing success, in particular, to create international laws enforcing universal access to abortion, and to make the refusal to provide abortion an international crime, punishable by the International Criminal Court (ICC). At least, such is the opinion of Richard Wilkins, professor of law at Brigham Young University.

In Wilkins' must-read article “International Law and the Right to Life”, published in the most recent issue of the Ave Maria Law Review, the professor argues that “lawmakers in present-day America—as in other countries around the world—face an unexpected reality: international norms—not national laws—may determine the ultimate legality of their official actions.” Indeed, according to Wilkins the UN is increasingly assuming a position of policymaker, creating new international norms that are being imposed upon nations—and accepted by them—as “hard law” (that is, actually binding legislation, enforceable with all the coercive power of the state.)

“These newly-emerging norms are generally phrased in emotionally appealing human rights rhetoric,” says Wilkins, “the clear meaning of which is obscured by elastic phrases…By means of prose at turns lofty and unintelligible, and often after somewhat incongruously disclaiming lawmaking intent, international policymakers are redefining the legal, social, moral, and ethical value of human life.”

In many cases these norms, contained in the documents produced by UN conferences, are being adopted by democratic nations without ever being ratified by the democratic processes upon which the nations’ legal systems were built in the first place. Wilkins cites instances of this radical and novel abuse of the democratic process carried out by the United States Supreme Court itself, which in the past has invoked UN documents that have never been ratified by Congress, as having authority.

Wilkins recounts his own experiences at UN conferences, detailing his desperate and oftentimes lonely efforts to ensure that language providing for international enforcement of access to abortion is not included in the final documents. Wilkins tells how at the Rome Conference in 1998, NGO’s and legal academics sought to make so-called “forced pregnancy” not only a “war-crime”, but a “crime against humanity.” This over-arching term, explains Wilkins, was “not limited to women who were forced by the state to become pregnant; rather, the phrase included women who were prevented from terminating unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.” Through the exhaustive and exhausting efforts of Wilkins and other pro-life lobbyists, the immediate disaster was averted; they successfully reminded many delegations of the fact that “far from constituting a ‘crime against humanity,’ pregnancy is a necessary precondition to the continuation of humanity.” The potent, anti-life language only entered the final document in a highly-sterilized form, defused of its explosive implications.

Since the Rome conference numerous similar efforts to impose universal access to abortion have been made, and generally with ever increasing success. At each of these conferences, according to Wilkins, only “because of consistent pro-life efforts, the final documents generally include language preserving national sovereignty on questions of human fertility and limiting the potentially expansive sweep of any reproductive rights language.”

Wilkins admits, however, that if the current paltry level of pro-life and pro-life advocacy at the UN stays constant, then he is not hopeful about the eventual outcome.

“Despite disappointments, questionable tactics, and the need to resort to double-speak, abortion-rights proponents continue to move ahead, relentlessly. Their academic personnel, resources, and enthusiasm never seem to diminish.” Wilkins contrasts this energy and determination against the world-wide pro-life response, which he calls generally “timid and restrained”. In large part Wilkins puts this response down to the fear which academics have of being stigmatized for pro-life beliefs. But he emphasizes that “pro-life academicians must be willing to act—even when acting is not easy.”

Wilkins concludes with a final exhortation to action, saying “Those who cherish the right to life must forge an international legal system that respects and protects the inalienable rights of all members of the human family. If we succeed, we will have forged results stronger than iron: generations of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, grandparents and grandchildren, who will reap the blessings of the simple things of life—marriage, motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, and faith—the simple things that make ordinary life pleasant and possible. No task on this grand and great earth is more important.”

[Read the full article on the Ave Maria Law Review website.]


Bishop, Author of Amnesty International Prayer, to Resign over Abortion Stance

By Gudrun Schultz

EAST ANGLIA, England, June 1, 2006 ( – Roman Catholic Bishop Michael Evans, a 30-year member of Amnesty International (AI) and author of last year’s Amnesty Prayer, has condemned the organization’s move to promote abortion as a fundamental human right, saying he will be forced to withdraw his membership if the agency continues with the proposal.

In a statement published on Bishop Evans’ website, he stated, “[I]t would be very difficult for Catholics and many others to continue as formal members of an organisation which explicitly excluded some of the most vulnerable of all—the ‘unborn human’—from its current campaign to ‘Protect the Human.’”

“Whatever the range of views of Amnesty members on abortion," he continued, "moving from its neutral stance may well serve to undermine its effectiveness in its key areas of expertise and influence. Its ability to work with the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies would be badly impaired. It would become a partisan body, particularly in places like the United States, and thus lose its ability to build consensus around issues like the death penalty…Those involved in decision-making at international level need to ponder this very carefully indeed.”

The UK branch of Amnesty International voted in April to embark on abortion advocacy. The Spectator reported that Bishop Evans expressed his dismay over the decision in a letter to Kate Allen, Amnesty’s UK director.

“[M]any Roman Catholics, including myself, would feel obliged—very reluctantly—to withdraw our membership of an organisation which has done great work since Peter Benenson, a Roman Catholic, founded it in 1961,” Bishop Evans wrote.

“I will continue my commitment to bringing the candle of justice to those in the darkness of oppression, but I would not feel able to continue as a member of a body which amidst its great work for humanity, excluded the most vulnerable of all—the unborn human—from its protection.”

He also warned AI that “any move towards supporting abortion will radically undermine in the eyes of many people, not only Roman Catholics, the perception of Amnesty as an organisation which ‘protects the human’ at every stage of life.”

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Amnesty International Considers Pushing Enforcement of Abortion as Human Right

Amnesty International: We're Supporting Abortion because of Gay Rights

Amnesty International UK Branch Approves Abortion Advocacy



Eugenic Abortion Looms Large in UK as Abortion Pill Use Doubles

By Gudrun Schultz

GREAT BRITAIN, May 29, 2006 ( - Babies are being aborted late in pregnancy for such minor defects as club feet or extra digits, reported the Sunday Times last week.

More than 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks gestation because it was found they had club feet, a condition that is correctible by surgery or physiotherapy, according to information obtained from the Office for National Statistics covering the period from 1996 to 2004. Four more otherwise healthy babies were aborted late-term because they had webbed fingers or extra digits, both of which can be easily corrected by minor surgery.

Additional cases include a child aborted at six months because scans revealed part of one foot had failed to develop, and a child aborted at seven months because it was discovered it had a cleft palate.

British abortion law contains a controversial provision allowing abortions up until birth if the child has a "serious handicap," intended to protect women from the psychological trauma of giving birth to a child who will most likely die soon afterwards. Increasingly, the clause is being used to end the life of children who have no significant disorders, but who are viewed as less than perfect by parents and doctors.

Easy access to abortion has been shown to dramatically increase abortion rates, despite advocates' claim that the majority of abortions are undertaken to deal with a "crisis" pregnancy. BPAS, formerly known as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said the rate of women using the abortion drug Mifeprex has doubled in the past 12 months, reported the Telegraph today. 10,000 women used the dangerous medication to end the life of their child last year.

The drug is taken within the first nine weeks of pregnancy to cause a chemical abortion.
The procedure is highly controversial, with the deaths of at least 12 women in Europe and North America linked to its use. Severe haemorrhaging, incomplete abortions and massive septic infections are among the many dangerous side effects to the medication.

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Abortion Drug RU-486 Company Admits to Death of Five Women
Swedish Woman Dies of Abortion Drug RU-486


(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use



Family group launches adoption campaign in Argentina to combat abortion

Buenos Aires, May. 18, 2006 (CNA) - The Christian Family Movement in Argentina has launched an “Adoption versus Abortion” campaign in order to reduce the number of abortion in the country.

Speaking to the Fides news agency, the spokesman for the CFM, Pablo Cavallero, said the initiative was started “in the wake of the current tendency to legalize abortion in the country and spread the idea that the carrying out of this crime is perfectly licit.”  [Click here for the whole article from the Catholic News Agency website.]


CTV's Mike Duffy on abortion debate in Ottawa

Pro-Life Debate
CTV News and Current Affairs
Thu 11 May 2006

MIKE DUFFY: Well, as I said, a crowd estimated at between five and 7,000 people gathered on Parliament Hill at lunch time today and some of them are still there. They're raising objections to the number of abortions occurring in Canada and they'd like the new Conservative government to take some action on that issue. Tom Wappel is a Liberal MP for Scarborough southwest in the greater Toronto area. Maurice Vellacott is a Conservative MP from Saskatoon , Saskatchewan . And both of you are opposed to abortion. So, Mr. Vellacott, let me ask you what your sense of the state of this political debate is in the country today. Bigger crowd, more media coverage, what's happening?

MAURICE VELLACOTT (Conservative MP): Well, I think actually there is a growing concern, Mike, and I think it comes around the fact that there is a lot of women stepping forward now. You had a number of these women out there in the hill today in the crowd. There was a group actually organized called Silent No More, and these are women that have actually had abortions and they feel they really had no choice, they were not properly informed. There is a growing, I guess, awareness of unwanted abortions in the country. Wherein men harass, badger, coerce if you will, it might be a boyfriend, it might be a partner, a husband, employer, doctor, friend, family members, but a lot of the abortions that I gather women have had in the country are not so much by their own volition insofar as that they feel pressured by other circumstances around, badgered into unwanted abortions.

DUFFY: Mr. Wappel, any woman I have ever met who has had an abortion of her volition, under pressure, whatever, nobody that I have met likes abortion. Everyone who has had one that I have ever met feels terrible about it. What is your sense of the political mood in the house, do you see this thing growing? Do you actually see it going to come back?

TOM WAPPEL (Liberal MP): We're the only western democracy that has absolutely no law whatsoever when it comes to protecting the unborn child. And so I think there is a growing realization that that's the case and that there is something wrong with that. Now exactly how to come to grips with that, that's an interesting question. As far as the house, the layout of the house or the shakedown of how it would go, it's almost impossible to tell because this is suggest a taboo subject for many politicians that you virtually cannot get them to even give an opinion on it.

DUFFY: It's really the third rail of Canadian political debate, step on the abortion issue and you are in deep political trouble. The Prime Minister's office, Mr. Vellacott, sent me a Blackberry message this afternoon saying they have no plan to re-open the abortion issue and they point out that five or six, no. I forget how many they say. Anyway, that there are several private members' bills have been introduced over the last little while, some of them by Liberals. Some Conservatives, and let's be honest, this week you've been a bit of a person of controversy here, some Conservatives have said to me, why do these guys bring this up. Why don't they just let it go. It's only going to cause trouble for Stephen Harper when the next election comes around. How do you answer your colleagues when they raise it?

VELLACOTT: I think it's a non-partisan issue. It's a social justice issue, if you will. It should be not seen as a party issue, if you will. It's across party lines. The caucus is a multi-party kind of a gathering of individuals that work together on this issue, a concern for women, a concern for child. A concern that often there is the lack of information provided to women. A lot of these women say that, too.

DUFFY: But, Tom, you admit that there is pressure in the Liberal caucus as well, right, to zip it up, to shut up about it?

WAPPEL: Well, I have never had anyone say that to me even when I brought my private members' bill forward. No one ever really pressured me. Maybe that's just me, but I didn't get any pressure.

DUFFY: But many of your colleagues are terrified to speak out.

WAPPEL: Even the former Prime Minister didn't really want to raise the issue. It's just an odd thing. You can talk about seals, you can talk about whales, you can talk about the environment, you can talk about anything, but you can't talk about unborn children being killed. I find it fascinating.

DUFFY: But again, Mr. Vellacott, if this becomes right away the critics of the Conservative party say, see, there is a hidden agenda, see, there is guys like Maurice Vellacott who would want to take away a woman's right to choose.

VELLACOTT: Well finish the sentence, Mike. Choose what? You know, choose your lunch menu? Choose your vehicle? Choose your house? Choose your vocation?

DUFFY: Choose to have an abortion. Or choice for whatever she wants to do.

VELLACOTT: For my part, Mike, I believe that there is a lot of non-legislative things that we could and ought are obligated to do in a compassionate, caring society that we're not doing more to support women in those difficult times. Such that they feel coerced, badgered, harassed, pressed into a corner, an unwanted abortion when, in fact, they might make a choice otherwise instead of the only choice for them between, you know, taking the life of their offspring maybe they would choose otherwise if we as a society did much better. There is non-legislative things I am saying, Mike, that could and should be done as the hallmark of a caring, compassionate, progressive society. The issue of informed consent is big for women because they don't feel like they've been shared information in respect to the risks and complications of abortions with the variety of things they could develop there. The abortion breast cancer link is controversial. We talked about it today as well.

DUFFY: Tom Wappel says nobody's ever tried to pressure him. The buzz here this week was that there was a lot of heavy pressure put on you to voluntarily resign at the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. Have you been feeling heat? Is the command centre above us here trying to close down that debate?

VELLACOTT: I think they're very respectful in terms of this and other discussions in respect to my voluntary resignation on the committee. I and council got advice and input from many people.

DUFFY: You are saying no pressure from the PMO?

VELLACOTT: I don't feel pressure from the PMO. Mr. Harper is a reasonable person. I think these are the types of things that should be discussed in a society so that we don't have the unwanted abortions, the no choice that we have proper, informed consent so that women realize the risks and the complications. The ectopic pregnancies, the haemorrhaging, the various other things, and are, therefore, in a position to make a proper, informed choice.

DUFFY: That's got to be the last word. We're out of time. Thank you very much, Maurice Vellacott, Tom Wappel. Appreciate you joining us. Tom, we missed you in the Liberal leadership race, but I am sure you will be at the convention for sure anyway. Stay with us here on "Mike Duffy Live". When we come back we're going to talk to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs about Native issues. We're also going to talk to the premier of British Columbia , Gordon Campbell. Is he missing Kelowna and is he getting out the crying towel for Dalton McGuinty? That's all coming up next here on "Mike Duffy Live".


© 2006 CTV Television Inc. All Rights Reserved



Family group launches adoption campaign in Argentina to combat abortion

Buenos Aires, May. 18, 2006 (CNA) - The Christian Family Movement in Argentina has launched an “Adoption versus Abortion” campaign in order to reduce the number of abortion in the country.

Speaking to the Fides news agency, the spokesman for the CFM, Pablo Cavallero, said the initiative was started “in the wake of the current tendency to legalize abortion in the country and spread the idea that the carrying out of this crime is perfectly licit.”  [Click here for the whole article from the Catholic News Agency website.]


Amnesty International Considers Pushing Enforcement of Abortion as Human Right

Ominously proposes punishing "abuses of sexual and reproductive rights by private persons, organizations"

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, April 25, 2006 ( - Amnesty International (AI) has proposed actively fighting against the right to life for unborn children by using its resources to promote a so-called 'right to abortion'.  In proposed changes to its Sexual and Reproductive Rights Policy, the organization has asked members to comment on proposals around AI's abortion position by May 20, 2006.

In its Sexual and Reproductive Rights (SRR) Consultation Kit, AI includes a "Draft Policy statement on Sexual and Reproductive Rights."  The policy includes the demand that "Governments must refrain from denying or limiting equal access to sexual and reproductive health services."  Adding ominously, "they must act with due diligence to punish abuses of sexual and reproductive rights by private persons, organizations and other non-state actors."

The draft policy also seeks to hamper the right of health care workers to disassociate from abortion services.  "The right of individual health care professionals to object on grounds of conscience to providing certain information and services does not absolve them or the health care system for which they work from taking immediate steps to ensure that the necessary treatment is given without delay," says the draft.

In another document reviewing "key" issues regarding sexual and reproductive rights, AI quotes a UN representative who suggests denying abortion constitutes "violence against women".  The review states, "Former UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Radhika Coomaraswamy, has stated that 'acts deliberately restraining women from using contraception or from having an abortion constitute violence against women by subjecting women to excessive pregnancies and childbearing against their will, resulting in increased and preventable risks of maternal mortality and morbidity.'"

The AI International Council is already decidedly in favour of promoting abortion as can be deduced from the language they use.  The International Council calls for a consultation on the question of abortion, which "should enable AI to take an informed decision as to the organization's position - should it choose to do so - on the question of whether a woman's right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to terminate her pregnancy, subject to reasonable limitations, and of whether abortion should therefore be legal, safe and accessible to all women."

The plan is to decide by the end of 2006 on adopting a position on three aspects of abortion:
- "decriminalization of abortion";
- "access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion";
- "legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a woman's life"

The document notes that "all other decisions related to possible AI positions on the issue of abortion" would be taken to the 2007 International Council Meeting.

AI then asks its members the following questions:
Level 1
1. Do you have specific comments, reactions or questions about the Draft Policy statement on Sexual and Reproductive Rights?
Level 2
1. Should Amnesty International adopt a policy on any of the three aspects of abortion or should we maintain our current policy (which states: Amnesty International has not adopted a position on whether or not women have a right to choose to terminate unwanted pregnancies...)?
Level 3
2. Should the International Executive postpone any decisions on the three aspects of abortion until the fall, next spring or the next International Council meeting, to provide more opportunity for us to give input?

In Canada email answers may be sent to Cheryl Hotchkiss at

In other countries contact the local Amnesty office:



Amnesty International UK Branch Approves Abortion Advocacy

Contradicts organization's stated support for UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

by John-Henry Westen

LONDON, May 5, 2006 ( - The UK branch of Amnesty International (AIUK) decided last month to have the international organization enter into abortion advocacy despite the efforts of pro-life members to persuade delegates to vote for a neutral policy on abortion.  The decisions document produced by the AIUK at their national conference and general meeting held in April indicates that the group rejected two proposals to retain the AI neutral stand on abortion. (see the document in pdf here:

"The full realization of human rights should be understood to mean that a woman's right to physical and mental integrity includes a right to . . .  Legal safe and accessible abortion should she choose to have an abortion," says the document

UK pro-life groups Precious Life and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children have condemned the decision. 

In a press release Precious Life accused AIUK of hypocrisy and said the organisation had now turned its back on human rights. "AIUK claim to support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world. This convention clearly states: 'The child …deserves special care and safeguards, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth.' It is now utter hypocrisy for Amnesty UK to continue supporting this convention while supporting the killing of a child before birth," said Precious Life.

"Amnesty UK has turned its back on human rights, the very thing they have campaigned to protect for over forty years," said the pro-life group. "We will be launching a campaign calling on Amnesty members to leave the organisation unless they start actively campaigning to protect the right to life of unborn children."

The AI branch in Canada is to decide on its position regarding abortion advocacy by May 20. (see coverage:


An excerpt from an article in The Calgary Herald:

Respect for life hard to find here 
Naomi Lakritz

In this [2006] week of Passover and Easter, holidays that celebrate new life and redemption, the Herald editorial board visited the most unredeemable place in Calgary -- the Kensington Clinic.

This is where 2,900 unborn babies are killed each year. Clinic staff don't like action verbs. They call it a "procedure." They're also fond of making smug pronouncements such as, "Don't judge someone until you've walked in their shoes." They can dance around the issue all they like; it doesn't change the fact that when you have a living being whose heart is beating, and you cause that heart to stop beating, you have killed that being. And it is entirely reasonable to pass judgment that killing is morally wrong.

Despite the fact clinic staff boast of handing out birth control information to all patients, 25 per cent, or 725 annually, are repeat abortions. This double whammy of irresponsibility is blithely labelled "choice."

The clinic does abortions up to 20 weeks. If your unborn baby is older than 20 weeks, staff will give you the addresses of U.S. clinics you can turn to.

I asked Dr. . . . if he ever looks at a near-20-week fetus after an abortion and wonders if this is a sentient being.

"No," he said. "I never think it might be sentient."

Those of us who are mothers know from our unborn children's reactions to noise and to our voices that those little beings are indeed sentient.
Premature babies of the same age are certainly treated as sentient humans, for neonatologists struggle heroically to save them. Nobody decrees, after such a tiny baby's early arrival: "Next Tuesday, his soul will enter him and he will be fully conscious." Consciousness is simply
assumed to be there.

What if scientists proved that a 12-week fetus feels pain and is sentient?

[The doctor] shrugged. "It wouldn't matter," he said.

It wouldn't matter that you were dismembering a human being who was aware of its own existence and could feel the pain of being torn to pieces?

[The doctor] insists "there's no evidence either way about when a fetus can feel pain."

He either is unaware, or chooses to ignore, that a British pro-choice doctor, Viviette Glover, thinks fetuses may feel pain at 17 weeks. Perhaps this information is considered suspect because it is circulated by Paul Ranalli, a pro-life Toronto neurologist, who noted in February in the Herald that two-thirds of Canadians want legal restrictions on abortion. . . . .



The fact that the article from which the following excerpt was taken appeared in a major Canadian newspaper seems significant.  May we hope for a change in the taboo against discussing Canada's lawlessness in the matter of abortion?

Canada needs an abortion law

Jonathan Kay

On March 6, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a blanket abortion prohibition -- the first such ban to be legislated since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade 33 years ago. Inspired by South Dakota's example, lawmakers in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia are considering similar legislation. . . . .

...Since 1991, when the last effort died in the Senate, Canada has had no abortion law -- a shameful status that distinguishes us from every other nation in the free world. Fetal viability can begin after 23 weeks of gestation. At 37 weeks, doctors consider a pregnancy full-term. Yet by the lights of Canadian federal law, it is equally legal to kill a fetus at 10, 23, 37 or 40 weeks. Doctors are even permitted to remove part of a viable fetus from a woman before extinguishing it -- a process opaquely referred to as "intact dilation and extraction." . . . .

. . .in all civilized nations except ours, the parameters of when and how to permit abortions -- gestation limits, parental notification, counselling periods, government subsidy -- are live issues, and their regulation is subject to ongoing legal refinement. Secure in the basic right to abortion, voters recognize that some restrictions are a moral necessity, and that the nature of those restrictions presents exactly the sort of issue that should be the meat of politics.

. . .Liberated from the taboos imposed on us by pro-choice activists and timid politicians, Canada could create an abortion law that aligns itself with the nation's collective moral sense . . .

[Click here to read the whole National Post article.]


Conservative Government Soon to Decide on New Brunswick Refusal to Fund Private Abortions
By Gudrun Schultz
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, February 20, 2006 ( – New Brunswick’s refusal to pay for abortions done at Morgentaler’s Fredericton clinic will soon be addressed by the Conservative government, according to a Health Canada spokesperson.
     The province has fought with Ottawa for years over its determination not to pay for abortion procedures in private clinics, arguing that the federal government is operating under a double standard in singling out private abortions for provincial funding.
Former Liberal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh initiated arbitration proceedings—the dispute avoidance resolution process under the Canada Health Act—last year, but the process was interrupted by the election.
     Peter Ryan, executive director of NB Right to Life, told the Daily Gleaner he could not understand the Liberal government’s justification for insisting that the province should cover private abortions.
“They made an exception for abortion,” Ryan said. “It’s up to the provinces to determine what medical procedures are paid for and not paid. It’s not up to the federal government or an arbitration panel to determine that.”
Ryan said Dosanjih’s demand that New Brunswick foot the bill for the Mogentaler clinic contradicted the former minister’s stance on other private clinic issues.
     “It was just very strange,” Ryan said. “We hope under the Conservative government, there might be a different approach.”
The Morgentaler clinic is the only private abortion clinic in New Brunswick. According to the Gleaner, the clinic performs more than 600 abortions a year. At a charge of $500 to $750 dollars per abortion, the clinic brings in more than $350,000 dollars a year.
      Pro-life leaders in the area are urging all pro-life Canadians to write to Health Minister Tony Clement and urge him to drop the arbitration proceedings.  To contact Health Minister Tony Clement:
Or call: 1-866-375-8669 to reach Mr. Clement’s voice mail. On his official website Mr. Clement has pledged to return all calls.


Elliot Institute
For Immediate Release

"Evidence Doesn't Matter" -- APA Spokesperson Says of Abortion Complications

Studies Showing Emotional Problems Not Relevant to American Psychological Association's Pro-Choice Advocacy

Springfield, IL (Feb. 15, 2005) -- According to a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, the APA's pro-choice position, first adopted in 1969, is based on a civil rights view, not on scientific proof of any mental health benefits arising from abortion.

The admission that ideology, not science, governs the APA's support for abortion came in response to a request by a Washington Times columnist for the organization's reaction to a new study linking abortion to mental illness. The study tracked 25 years of worth of data on women born in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The researchers had expected that their data, drawn from one of the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal studies in the world, would definitively refute a recent series of studies linking abortion to higher rates of mental health problems. The Christchurch team, led by a self-professed "pro-choice atheist," Prof. David M. Fergusson, expected to find that any mental health problems occurring after abortion would be fully explainable by prior mental health problems, which some believe are more common among women who have abortions. Instead, the New Zealand research team found the opposite. Even after the researchers controlled for this and numerous other alternative explanations, abortion was clearly linked to elevated rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior.

The findings so surprised Fergusson's research team that they began reviewing the studies cited by the APA in its claims that abortion is beneficial, or at least non-harmful, to women's mental health. The researchers concluded (1) that the APA's publications defending abortion are based on a small number of studies that had major methodological shortcomings (a view that echoes former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's complaint in 1987 that the research on abortion was too inadequate to draw any definitive conclusions), and (2) that the APA appeared to be consistently ignoring a body of studies published in the last seven years that have shown negative effects from abortion.

The Christchurch team's criticism of the APA's selective and strong assurances of the mental health benefits of abortion prompted Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist and newspaper columnist, to call the APA for comment on Fergusson's criticisms. He was referred to an APA expert and spokesperson on abortion and women's issues, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo. Russo was among the leaders within the APA who, in 1969, led the organization to adopt an official position in favor of abortion as a civil right. She has subsequently been active in research and advocacy efforts opposing parental notification and mandatory informed consent statutes related to abortion.

APA Is Not Neutral On Abortion Science

When asked to comment on the New Zealand study and the pro-choice authors' criticisms of the APA, Russo told Throckmorton that the APA's position on abortion was established on the view that abortion is a civil right. As quoted in Throckmorton's Washington Times column, Russo explained that the Christchurch study would have no effect on the APA's position because "to pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion."

In the first draft of Throckmorton's column, which he sent for comment to another expert on abortion research, Dr. David Reardon of the Springfield, IL-based Elliot Institute, Russo was quoted more bluntly, saying, "it doesn't matter what the evidence says." Throckmorton and Russo subsequently agreed to the clarification of her statement as it appeared in the Washington Times.

According to Reardon, an author of several of the studies on abortion that have been ignored by the APA, Russo's statements "confirm the complaint of critics that the APA's briefs to the Supreme Court and state legislatures are really about promoting a view about civil rights, not science. Toward this end, the APA has set up task forces and divisions that include only psychologists who share the same bias in favor of abortion."

Reardon believes the APA's task forces on abortion have actually served to stifle rather than encourage research. "When researchers like Fergusson or myself publish data showing abortion is linked to mental health problems, members of the APA's abortion policy police rush forward to tell the public to ignore our findings because they are completely out of line with their own 'consensus' statements which are positioned as the APA's official interpretation of the meaningful research on abortion," he said.

When is Relief Not Relief?

Reardon is especially disturbed by what he decries as the "one note" optimism found in position papers by the APA, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations supporting abortion.

Among the studies most frequently cited by abortion supporters are those that have asked women to check off a list of feelings they have after their abortions, often within just a few hours, a week, or a month of the procedure. The list may include words like "relief," "regret," "guilt," and "happiness." These studies have found that the most commonly reported reaction after abortion is relief. Indeed, the phrase, "the most commonly reported reaction is relief," frequently shows up in information and consent forms for abortion.

"All the emphasis on women experiencing relief is misleading because most women reporting relief also report negative reactions," Reardon said. "Indeed, when you add up the number of women reporting negative reactions, it regularly exceeds the number of women reporting relief."

The problem, Reardon says, is that while statistics on "relief" may have value in marketing or lobbying for abortion, they have little or no value as a scientific measure.

"Women are simply presented with this single word," he said. "So women who feel relief that they survived an unpleasant surgery, relief that they will no longer face their boyfriend's badgering to have an abortion, relief that they are no longer having morning sickness, or relief from any number of other stresses, are all lumped into the same category, even though their experiences are different.  Lumping all forms of relief together helps to makes it sound like most women are reporting that abortion has fundamentally improved their lives, but it's a sloppy and misleading data variable. In fact, when you really look at the data, most of the very same women who are reporting 'relief' are also reporting grief, shame, traumatic reactions, or other negative feelings."

"Thirty-five years ago, when the APA joined in the effort to legalize abortion, they were promising more than just 'relief,'" he added. "They were insisting that abortion would fundamentally improve women's mental and physical health by sparing them the burden of unwanted children. But 38 million abortions later, there is still not a single statistically-validated study that has shown that abortion has actually improved the lives of women who abort compared to those who carry to term.

"Instead, if you look at the data instead of consensus opinions, depression rates are up, not down, among women who have had abortions. Suicide and substance abuse are up, not down. Premature deliveries are up, not down. But instead of including this data in their statements on abortion, the APA's self-selected panels of abortion advocates continue to distract the media from the all hard evidence linking abortion to higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, depression and anxiety by promoting meaningless statistics about relief."

Reardon says he is thankful that Russo has finally helped to call attention to the fact that the APA's position on abortion is principally based on a commitment to defend abortion as a civil right.

But this admission, he says, "should be weighed in light of criticisms against the trend toward 'consensus science' as a means of influencing politics.  As one critic, best-selling author Dr. Michael Crichton, creator of Jurassic Park and ER, has succinctly observed: 'The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.'"



Outside the context of the abortion debate, best selling author Michael Crichton, M.D., a 1969 graduate of the Harvard Medical School, described the disturbing trend of "consensus science" at a Caltech lecture in 2004, a brief portion of which is excerpted below:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Excerpted from Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming," Caltech Michelin Lecture, Jan. 17, 2003. (available online)

# # #


David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Abortion in young women and
subsequent mental health," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(1): 16-24, 2006.


Warren Throckmorton, "Abortion and mental health," Washington Times, January 21, 2005.

David, H., " Retrospectives" From APA Task Force to Division 34," Population & Environmental Psychology Bulletin 1999, 25(3):2-3.

The above news release, along with other news on recent studies related to abortion complications, is posted at



Illinois Newspaper Capitulates, Agrees To Run Pro-Life Ads Refused as “Too Graphic”

By Gudrun Schultz

CHICAGO, Illinois, February 14, 2006 ( – The Illinois paper that said pro-life ads were “too graphic” to run has changed its decision, in a well-publicized victory for abortion opponents.

When Jill Staneck, a nurse and president of Right to Life of Will County, contacted the Herald News last month to purchase space for the ads, the paper rejected them. One of the ads shows a 3-D ultrasound photograph of the face of an unborn baby.

Joliet-based Herald News told CNS they reserve the right to reject any advertising for any reason. Staneck says an ad rep for the paper said the decision was made because the ads were “too graphic” and “we have to be careful,” in her blog report today.

Staneck received an email from the editor of the Herald News, Steve Vanisko, yesterday, saying that after re-examining the ads he would allow them to run in the paper.

In his email Vanisko denies that he ever stated the ads were too graphic, and says “If that was stated by a representative of this newspaper, it was done so in error.” (To view editor Steve Vanisko’s email:

Staneck, however, stands by her original account, stating, “…his subordinate did relay to us that he/the advertising department originally rejected our ads because they considered them ‘too graphic.’ Our ‘local contact’ with the newspaper wrote down what the ad rep said verbatim.”

The Herald’s decision to back down on the issue demonstrates a growing influence of pro-life activism on the mainstream media. Vanisko emailed ABC News yesterday to let them know of the Herald’s decision. Supporters of Staneck who contacted the Herald in protest of the censorship reported that they also received copies of Vanisko’s email.

[Click here to view the ads.]



President Bush Touts Abortion Decline, Calls for Human Cloning Ban

Washington, DC ( -- During his State of the Union speech on . . .{Janury 31, 2006], President Bush touted the significant decline in abortions that has been taking place and called on members of Congress to pass a comprehensive ban on all forms of human cloning. "There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades," President Bush said. "These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment," the president explained. Meanwhile, President Bush told Congress that advances in medical research should "not cut ethical corners" and "recognize the matchless value of every life." "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research -- human cloning in all its forms," the president said. He called on Congress to approve legislation that would prohibit "creating or implanting embryos for experiments," "creating human-animal hybrids" and "buying, selling, or patenting human embryos." "Human life is a gift from our Creator - and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale," Bush said.

 . . . .

Majority of UK Women Want Abortion Restricted by Law

By Gudrun Schultz

GREAT BRITAIN, UK, February 1, 2006 ( – Women in the United Kingdom want to see more legal protection for unborn children.

An opinion poll from January conducted by Ipsos MORI found widespread public support for greater restrictions on abortion, particularly among women. Almost 60 percent of all women polled want to see greater restrictions on abortion access. 47 per cent want to see the current limit of 24 weeks reduced, while ten percent of women want to see abortion banned entirely, “under any circumstances.”

Less than one third of women and just over one third of men questioned think the present limit should stand as it is. Only two per cent of women and five per cent of men want to see abortion limits increased to more than 24 weeks.

Advances in ultrasound technology that allow a clear view of the child’s face in the womb appear to have affected public opinion.  In particular, images of unborn children smiling and frowning at 24 weeks have had an impact.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, plans to encourage the government to conduct a review of the existing law, his spokesman told Reuters.

“The Cardinal sees in this moral awakening a growing unease with, and erosion of, the idea of abortion as simply a woman’s right,” Dr. Austen Ivereigh, spokesman for Cardinal O’Connor, said. “There has been a moral awakening over the last few years about abortion—the British public have been undergoing a reality check.”

Some pro-abortion MPs have begun to look at the possibility of supporting a reduction in abortion limits, based on medical advances that have further improved viability rates for premature babies—Current legislation is based on viability. In 1990 legislation was passed reducing the original limit of 28 weeks to 24 after doctors stated babies could now be considered viable at an earlier age.

Abortion was legalized in Britain in 1967.  Approximately 200,000 children die each under the current laws.
Ipsos MORI interviewed 1,790 people aged 16 to 64 by online questionnaire between 6 and 10 January.

     Abortion Pill RU486 Banned in Italy

By Gudrun Schultz

MILAN, Italy, February 1, 2006 ( – Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has banned imports of the abortion pill RU 486.

Although the drug is not licensed in Italy, it has been available on an “experimental” basis since 2002. Health Minister Francesco Storace said imports of the drug have “rocketed” in the past two years, in an interview with the UK Times.

“From now on doctors will have to justify every individual request on precise clinical and epidemiological grounds,” he said.

The abortion pill causes a woman up to seven weeks pregnant to abort her baby. The drug Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, causing the uterine lining to break down and bleed.

The so-called “medical abortion” occurs with severe side effects including nausea, pain and bleeding. Hemorrhaging occurs in up to five percent of cases. In over ten percent of cases, medical intervention, including a surgical abortion, is required to cope with the effects of the drug. Ten women have died from taking the drug, five in the US alone.

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI urged doctors not to give women the abortion pill, saying the Italian government should not "introduce pharmaceuticals that in one way or another hide the grave nature of abortion."

For previous LifeSiteNews coverage, see:

Public Documents Reveal Numerous RU-486 Complications

For further information on RU486, go to:



On Day of Alito Confirmation, Two Courts Rule Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional

By John-Henry Westen

SAN FRANCISO, February 1, 2006 ( - While pro-lifers were celebrating the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, two federal Appellate Courts ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, with a reputation of being the most activist court in the nation, ruled unanimously.  The ruling, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, barred enforcement of the act, affirming a lower court's "permanent injunction." (See the full ruling here:$file/0416621.pdf?openelement )

The 2nd Circuit Court in Manhattan also held the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban unconstitutional. See the ruling here:

"This ruling is one of a number of nonsensical abortion rulings handed down by our liberal courts," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "On one had we have courts that convict people like Scott Peterson for double homicide when it involves the death of a pregnant woman and her pre-born baby. Then on the other hand, we have courts that determine that the 'gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized' partial-birth abortion is a Constitutional right."

"This schizophrenic and immoral misapplication of our laws can no longer be tolerated. These cases must go to the newly seated Supreme Court for adjudication. This will be a golden opportunity for Roberts and Alito to put their conservative judicial philosophies to good use," said Newman.



US Supreme Court Avoids Major Abortion Ruling

By Gudrun Schultz

WASHINGTON, United States, January 18, 2006 ( – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today against a lower court’s decision to strike down abortion restrictions in the state of New Hampshire, but stopped short of a major ruling on the necessity of a “health clause” in abortion legislation.

In 2000 the Court of Appeals in Boston ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood New England, which had challenged New Hampshire’s parental notification law. The law required under-age girls to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. Planned Parenthood said the law was unconstitutional because it did not allow exceptions in cases of a health risk to the girl.

In fact New Hampshire’s parental notification law does make allowances for cases in which the girl’s life is in immediate danger. In all lesser cases of medical emergency, the law requires that parents be notified of physical danger to their child.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further hearings.
Phyllis Woods, a former state representative from Dover, N.H., who was a main sponsor of the law, told the Associated Press she was pleased by the ruling but concerned that the appeals court might require a broad health exception.

 "Our concern has always been that a blanket health exception opens the door and really negates the whole purpose of the bill," Woods said

Health exceptions in abortion law have been interpreted so loosely that they have become synonymous with open access to abortion. Opponents say they are simply a method of bypassing legal restrictions to abortion. So far, the Court has avoided addressing the issue directly. It is not considered a constitutional necessity to provide for health exceptions in abortion law, although advocates say the Nebraska ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court struck down a ban on partial-birth abortion because it did not contain provisions for health risks to the mother, set a decisive precedent.
In 1990 the Supreme Court stood in favor of parental notification laws in Minnesota, in a case almost identical to that of New Hampshire.

A Gallup poll released in November 2005 found almost 70% of Americans support parental notification laws.

"Mother Seeks Abortion Rule Change" [in the U.K.]
[Excerpt from article on BBC site last updated 6 November 2005]

A mother says she is confident of changing government guidelines that allow girls to have abortions without their parents' knowledge.

Sue Axon, 50, of Baguely, Manchester, wants guarantees she and other parents would be informed if their daughters were referred for an abortion.

A judicial review of the Department of Health's guidelines begins on Tuesday.

Mrs Axon, who has two daughters, said she regrets having an abortion herself 20 years ago. 

Current Department of Health guidelines state terminations can take place without parents' consent and doctors should respect girls' privacy.

[Click here to read the whole article on BBC News.]


Canadian Abortion Activists Attempt to Repackage Their Image

OTTAWA, October 17, 2005 ( - Pro-abortion groups in Canada are taking a page from their American counterparts, attempting to repackage their image so as to become relevant to the younger generation of Canadians that has largely ignored them leaving a tired, old leadership without many prospects to fill their shoes.  In the US last year, the National Abortion Rights Action League renamed itself NARAL Pro-Choice America.  In Canada, the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL) officially closed its doors only to reopen under the name The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC).

In a press release today, ARCC admits that the abortion movement is struggling to even find doctors willing to terminate the lives of unborn children.  Joyce Arthur, a well-seasoned pro-abortion veteran from British Columbia, said that "Access (to abortion) is further hampered by a persistent shortage of doctors able or willing to perform abortions."

The abortion-homosexual connection

Excerpt from an article posted: December 2, 2005 on WorldNetDaily
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Robert Knight
© 2005

California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appointment of longtime Democrat, lesbian activist and pro-abortion leader Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff is more evidence of The Terminator's disdain for social conservatives.

But the move also illustrates the strong collaboration between homosexual activists and the abortion lobby. For years, the two radical social movements have worked hand in hand to destroy the primacy of marriage and family and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. . . . .

 . . . Presented with the stark example of Kennedy's appointment in California, pro-life Americans who ignore the homosexual issue might want to reassess.

Kennedy, a former top aide to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, was described this way in the San Francisco Chronicle:


Appointed by Davis to the California Public Utilities Commission in 2003, Kennedy had made her name as a political operative as the head of the California branch of the National Abortion Rights Action League. A longtime gay rights activist, Kennedy married her partner, Vicki Marti, in a 1999 ceremony in Hawaii attended by many California political insiders.


. . . .

Kennedy's rise to the top of California's power structure is just the tip of the iceberg. Openly lesbian California Democratic legislators Sheila Kuehl and Carole Migden, along with openly homosexual Mark Leno, have led the fight against any restrictions on abortion while initiating a slew of pro-homosexual measures, including full-blown "gay marriage," promoting homosexuality in the schools, and a law prohibiting the state from doing business with firms that do not subsidize homosexual relationships. Leno and Kuehl are listed as co-authors of AB 654, a euthanasia bill so radical that it didn't even get a floor vote in the liberal-dominated Assembly.

At the national level, the pro-abortion National Organization for Women supports all aspects of the homosexual agenda, including same-sex "marriage," hate crime laws, and persecuting the Boy Scouts for barring homosexuals as scoutmasters. . . . .

NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly called the National Abortion Rights Action League, represents the abortion industry. The group opposes any restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortions, and works against requiring abortion clinics to comply with routine medical safety standards for outpatient centers.

On April 7, 2005, Kate Michelman, former NARAL president, presented the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's "Annual Leadership Award" to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. The current chairman of the Democratic Party was honored for his "lifetime achievement and commitment to progressive causes," including service to "the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community." While governor, Dean presided over Vermont's adoption of homosexual civil unions that are identical to marriage in all but name.

On April 11, 2005, the chief executive of the pro-abortion Democratic activist group Emily's List moved sideways to become president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual pressure group. Joe Solmonese, who has spent years raising money for Democratic candidates, had run Emily's List since 2003. That group distributes money to elect pro-abortion Democratic women. Emily's List has a staff of 85 and a $40 million budget. Human Rights Campaign has a staff of 125 and a budget of $30 million, according to the Washington (D.C.) Blade. . . . .

For millennia, strategic thinkers have stressed the utmost importance of identifying your opponent. Here's Sun Tzu (500-320 B.C.):


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

– "The Art of War"


Unless social conservatives realize that they are fighting an unholy alliance of the homosexual and abortion movements, they will lose key battles in both realms.

It's time to acknowledge the linkage and to tell politicians that being "pro-life" means more than just opposing abortion. . . . .

Being pro-life means more than casting a good vote now and then on an abortion-related bill. It also means supporting God's institution of marriage and fighting the homosexual agenda at every level, whether it is in the schools, the workplace or in the hallways of government. It also means aiding efforts to curb the explosion in pornography and indecency throughout the culture.

Longtime pro-life activist Janet Folger had an epiphany a few years ago at a pro-family conference at Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. She "suddenly connected the dots and realized it's all the same battle" after hearing a speaker discuss "the real aim of the homosexual agenda: the criminalization of Christianity."

Folger went on to become an articulate foe of homosexual activism and an advocate for the ex-gay movement, while also advancing the pro-life cause. Her excellent new book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," amply documents just what is at stake, beyond the human carnage that abortion and homosexuality exact.

The bottom line is that there's no longer any room for neutrality on this profoundly important issue. And politicians should no longer be allowed to hide behind "pro-life" credentials while helping to advance the radical homosexual agenda.

[Click here to read the whole article on WorldNetDaily.]





Ireland's Largest University Prevents Abortion Survivor Speaking


DUBLIN, Ireland, November 28, 2005 ( - Gianna Jessen, a 28-year-old woman who survived a saline abortion when she was 7 months in utero, has been prevented from speaking at Ireland's largest university - University College Dublin (UCD).

Despite her cerebral palsy, which she has described as a gift and is a legacy of the abortion, Jessen has traveled the world with her powerful testimony. She is living evidence of the humanity of the unborn child and the fact that abortion takes a human life.

'Ultrasound', the pro-life student network formed by the pro-life group Youth Defence, was delighted when Jessen agreed to undertake a tour of Irish colleges. Bookings and arrangements were made and materials printed and distributed in Ireland's largest universities.

However, while students across the country gave Gianna a rapturous welcome, Youth Defence suggests that forces within Ireland's largest university were determined to prevent students at University College Dublin (UCD) from hearing her testimony. Ultrasound leaders were told by UCD's administrators that they had to provide insurance for the event, which they arranged. On the morning of Ms Jessen's talk, however, the pro-life group was told the insurance did not meet requirements and that the talk could not go ahead.

Despite every effort of Ultrasound, UCD's would not let Ms Jessen speak. It then transpired that no insurance broker could provide the sort of insurance demanded by UCD for this event, since they were requiring insurance cover which would be necessary to facilitate a extreme risk event.

"This sort of insurance has never before been demanded by UCD to allow a speaker and it would seem that this obstacle was raised to prevent Ms Jessen's story being heard," commented Youth Defence. "Universities are meant to be places of discussion and learning; it is to UCD's shame that they effectively banned this young woman and her amazing story."

Ultrasound has asked that concerned international supporters email the following:
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, TD (Head of State) 
Dr. Hugh Brady UCD President's Office  
His Excellency Noel Fahey Irish Embassy USA 
His Excellency Martin Burke Irish Embassy Canada 


(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use




News from the United Kingdom:
Doctors reject call to reduce abortion limit
By Celia Hall, Medical Editor
(Filed: 01/07/2005)
Doctors voted yesterday against a call to reduce the legal time limit for abortion despite advances in medicine that mean a foetus can survive