That's the premise of a new -- but fictional -- reality show, where the
audience makes the choice
by Mark Moring
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.
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 YouTube.com 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.
Watch Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial YouTube.com 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.
(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
Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News Service: Tuesday,
February 2, 2010
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Prime Minister
Stephen Harper must include abortion in his G8 initiative to mobilize
international support for maternal and child health care in the
world's poorest countries.
Ignatieff told reporters Tuesday that there is no direct evidence
that Harper's initiative would specifically exclude abortion.
"We just want to lay down a marker that we hope they don't go
there," he said
Stephen Harper’s government has been in power for more than
four years now, without having disturbed any of the social issues
that Liberals warned would be high on its (secret) agenda. Gay
marriage remains legal. Mr. Harper has kept social conservatives
within his caucus on a tight leash. Canada’s lack of a national
policy dealing with abortion has remained unaddressed.
But Michael Ignatieff isn’t one to let reality get in the
way. This week, the one-time Ivy League intellectual trolled for
votes by dragging out the abortion issue, apropos of … nothing.
Bizarrely, he declared that the right to abortion is too sacred to
become a political football — even though the only one suited up
for the gridiron is Mr. Ignatieff himself.
His remarks, delivered to a roomful of Liberal supporters, MPs,
human rights representatives and humanitarian organizations, seem
to have been cribbed from a yellowing Paul Martin-era briefing
book. Yet even Mr. Martin never exhibited so much creepy
enthusiasm for spreading the Liberals’ abortion gospel to
foreign shores.
“If you’re going to invest in women, you’ve got to invest
in the full gamut of reproductive health services,” he said,
while speaking on the subject of aid initiatives. “This is the
last place to start playing politics here and ideology here. Women
are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and
that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception.” (For
those listening at home, “termination of pregnancy” is Planned
Parenthood jargon for what most of us know as “abortion.”)
Declaring that he wanted to “lay down a marker” to warn off
the government, Mr. Ignatieff stated: “We want to make sure that
women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to
control their fertility because we don’t want to have women
dying because of botched procedures, we don’t want to have women
dying in misery. We want women to care for themselves better and
then look after their kids better … let’s keep the ideology
out of this and move forward.”
Clearing up any confusion about whether he was talking
specifically about abortion, he added: “We’ve had a pro-choice
consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to
hold it.”
Mr. Ignatieff is staking out an absolutist pro-abortion
ideology beyond any taken previously by his party. Even most
pro-choice advocates stop short of casually lumping abortion in as
just another uncontroversial “contraceptive method,” as Mr.
Ignatieff appears to have done.
What’s worse, Mr. Ignatieff insists that the government
hard-wire this view into its foreign aid initiatives, such as Mr.
Harper’s recent proposal for G8 countries to increase support
for health programs for women and children in the poorest
countries. Would an Ignatieff government cancel aid to those
countries which, for religious or cultural reasons, are opposed to
abortion? Will Canadian social assistance to Afghanistan or Gaza
be withheld until women there can prove they’ve adopted
fashionable Liberal attitudes on the question of when life begins?
Hundreds of Thousands Join 37th March
for Life [in http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=876024 D.C.]
By John-Henry Westen
WASHINGTON, January 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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.
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.
References:
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.
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
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.
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 (C-FAM.org) - 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
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.
Young
Pro-life Europeans Demonstrate for Life at Strasbourg Court
By Hilary White
STRASBOURG, December 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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.
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 FoxNews.com. 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 FoxNews.com. "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 FoxNews.com 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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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."
[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.
Public
Memorial Service for Slain Pro-Life Hero to be Held at Football Stadium
Wednesday
By John Jalsevac
OWOSSO, Mich., Sept. 15 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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."
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
Summary
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."
Analysis
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 FactCheck.org).
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
By Doug Bandow
[Sept., 2009]
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
As Canadians, we need to talk intelligently about abortion and debate it
as we would any other issue.
by Faye Sonier
[from Christianity.ca]
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.
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 Christianity.ca article which the above
is an excerpt from.]
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)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRO-LIFERS
RELEASED FROM JAIL
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.
Vancouver
Police Arrest Sissy Von Dehn: Informing the Public Regarding the Bubble
Zone Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: VANCOUVER POLICE ARREST
ELDERLY WOMAN
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).
30-
-
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) Box
123, 5-8720 Macleod Trail
SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
403-668-0485 (office)
403-539-2227 (fax)
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]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
VANCOUVER
POLICE ARREST TWO AT ABORTION CLINIC
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
LifeSiteNews.com 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.
[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 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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.”
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 (theinterim.com) - 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.
Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: U OF C STUDENTS
PLEAD "NOT GUILTY" TO CHARGES OF TRESPASSING ON THEIR OWN CAMPUS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
U OF C STUDENTS PLEAD "NOT GUILTY" TO CHARGES OF
TRESPASSING ON THEIR OWN
CAMPUS
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
debate."
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.”
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulKIaVM9DE&feature=channel_page)
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 respectfully."
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 week.
Obama
Revokes Abortion Funding Policy, Will Fund Overseas Abortions with
Taxpayer Money
By John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012311.html).
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
(http://www.thesignalhill.com).
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 ProWomanProLife.org.
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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
"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’swell-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.
-30-
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
http://www.citizenvoices.gg.ca/en/forums/23 .
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 shame...how 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.
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 parentlinkalberta.ca, 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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."
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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: http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction)
"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.
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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.
Students
Defy University Censorship And Plead For Peaceful Freedom Of Expression
CALGARY, AB, March 31, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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: http://www.abortionno.org/World/russia.html
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 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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 teenwire.com 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 LifeNews.com Editor
March 5, 2008
Warrensburg,
MO (LifeNews.com) -- 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.
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 theirposition on abortion. The ads promote a website,
www.AbortionInCanada.ca, 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.”
-30-
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. www.michaelcoren.com
-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. www.michaelcoren.com
-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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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:
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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."
By
MICHAEL COREN
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 LifeSiteNews.com 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 LifeSiteNews.com,
"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
By ALISON SMITH-SQUIRE
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 inSection 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
guardian. 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
interests. 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
lawsuit.
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.
--XXX--
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052606.html).
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.
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).
Background:
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:
Jeff.Blackmer@cma.ca)
After you send your letter to CMA/CMAJ, we'd appreciate it if you could
forward a copy of it on to us at
info@physiciansforlife.ca 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.
Sincerely,
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)
www.physiciansforlife.ca
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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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."
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.
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 "CitizenLink.com"
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,
LifeNews.com 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.
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. Me: What do you mean? Steve: Well, the heart doesn’t even start beating until it’s
like five months along. Me: Five months? Steve: Sure. Me: Actually, it’s more like three weeks. Steve: 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. Me: Dead? Craig: Yeah. Me: And what do you base that statement on? Craig: Science.
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. Me: (silent, unsure of an appropriate response to such an
assertion) Samantha: Just because something is true doesn’t mean you
have to believe it. Me: 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? Samantha: Sure. I can go through my life denying what science
says is true. I have that right. Me: Yes, I guess you can. I can refuse to believe, for
example, that the world is round. I can insist it’s flat. Samantha: Exactly. Me: 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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Barry Michaels. "Samantha Shrugged." Touchstone (September,
2006): 23-25.
This article reprinted with permission from Touchstone: A Journal of
Mere Christianity.
Pro-Life Nurse Refuses to Assist in
Abortion of Down Syndrome Child
From citizenlink.com --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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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,
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca,
; 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, http://www.cusaonline.com,
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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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.”
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
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
Townhall.com.]
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.
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
Education:]
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
Warrensburg,
MO (LifeNews.com) -- 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.
