(CNSNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate
Rick Perry (R-Texas) said that China was “destined for the ash heap of
history” because of its immoral government, citing the fact that an
average of 35,000 abortions are performed there every day.
“I happen to the think that Communist China is destined for the ash
heap of history because they are not a country of virtues,” Perry said
during his closing comments at the GOP presidential debate on Nov. 22. . .
. .
[Click
here to read the whole CNS article online.]
British Columbia FOI Commissioner Elizabeth Denham
agrees with predecessors that no subject should be off limits
[BCPTL passes on this important
press release received from John Hof.]
PRESS
RELEASE
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November
29, 2011
3 TIMES A CHARM?
THIRD BC INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
STATES BC IS WRONG TO BAN TOPICS:
BRITISH COLUMBIA NOT MEETING INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS
Current
Information & Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has agreed with
her predecessors that no subject should be off limits under British
Columbia’s Information & Privacy Act. Denham took it a step further
and charged that British Columbia is not meeting international standards.
In
a letter dated November 8, 2011, Denham stated:
“I agree
with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the
subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.
The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that
all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of
FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion
service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.”
Stated open access
advocate Ted Gerk:
“Three
BC Information & Privacy Commissioners have agreed that Section 22.1
of our Information & Privacy Act is dated and wrong. Three.
The topic of abortion was declared off-limits by the former NDP government
in 2001, trying to use law to silence their political opponents. Three of
our OIP Commissioners have now stated that in a democracy, entire subjects
should never be off-limits. It is now time for the government to
act. Do they believe in the ability of the men and women they place to run
the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner or not?”
Furthermore,
there is ongoing information failure with abortion statistics in British
Columbia. For example, we can know that our local hospital is performing
abortions, but access to complication or health data is banned. Individual
clinics do not report their statistics to the Canadian Institute for
Health Information (CIHI) so there is no accurate health data on even the
amount of abortions performed in British Columbia.”
Copies
of the letters from Elizabeth Denham, Paul Fraser, QC, and David Loukidelis
can be found at:
Moral
dictatorship over abortion debate obscures range of Canadian opinion
By Natalie Hudson Sonnen
If polling is any indication, the issue of abortion in Canada is certainly
not over and done with. In a September National Omnibus poll by
Environics, the findings put the abortion issue squarely on the map.
Seventy-two per cent of a representative sample of 2000 Canadians surveyed
support legal protection for unborn babies.
Most (62%) want protection from conception or from two or three months
on; another 10% favour protection from six months on; and 20% supported
the current policy in Canada of no protection for human life until birth.
Canada is the only country in the Western world with no restrictions on
abortion.
The poll also found support for some kind of restrictions on abortion
among members of every political party.
It cannot be denied that 68% of Canadians want some form of legal abortion
in the first three months of gestation. Yet 58% stated it should be
illegal in the second three months, and 77% in the final three months.
Women were slightly more in favour of making abortion illegal in the final
three months of pregnancy: 81% to 73% of men.
And when it comes to sex-selection abortions, Canadians are thoroughly
put off. A massive 92% of Canadians thought sex-selection abortions
should be illegal in Canada.
On the question of who pays, 67% do not favour our current system of
tax-funded abortions. Thirteen per cent said abortions should always be
paid for by the patient and 54% said abortions should only be tax-funded
in emergency situations.
What Canadians actually think about abortion is not represented in our
current laws and policies. Clearly, there is no moral consensus on the
issue, yet there is a wide-spread ban on discussing it, a kind of moral
dictatorship that prohibits even a mention of the word at any level of
policy making. . . . .
Clearly the people of Canada favour legislation to restrict abortion,
but the dictatorship held by abortion absolutists terrifies most of us
into silence, especially our elected representatives. In the pervading
absence of discussion, the absence of law remains, and it is women and
their unborn children who suffer.
You
Haven’t Missed It!Watch and
Listen to This Special
on RoadKill Radio
"Life
Matters" Special - We Demand the Debate
If
you did not hear this Internet broadcast, featuring Senator Gerry St.
Germain, M.P. Brad Trost, and John Hof of Campaign Life Coalition (B.C.),
you
can still take it in, because
RoadKill Radio has it archived.Listen
here.
A message from Kari Simpson – This LIFE MATTERS
special is dedicated to the memory of baby Rodney Effert, who was
strangled to death by his mother shortly after his birth – and then on
Sept 14, 2011 was abandoned by the Canadian Justice system when the
Alberta Court of Appeal overturned Katrina Effert’s murder conviction.
Angry Canadians became outraged when the Supreme Court of Canada
refused to hear the appeal.
The time is now for you, as civil and just Canadians, to
demand protection for our most vulnerable. It is time to end the taxpayer
funded extermination of our children through the brutal act of abortion.
It is time to send a clear message to the courts and to our elected
officials that LIFE MATTERS.
Washington Post: Obama
Administration Deliberately Defunded Bishops Group
by Karla Dial
When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lost a federal
contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in
October for the work it does with sex trafficking victims, many people
suspected it was because the Catholic group will not provide or refer
for abortions.
On Monday, The Washington Post reported that speculation as
a fact.
Citing HHS sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, The Post
reported that the USCCB contract was a matter of much discussion — and
strife — within HHS before the agency officially adopted a policy
giving “strong preference” to grant applicants that would provide or
offer referrals for “the full range of legally permissible
gynecological and obstetric care.”
“It was so clearly and blatantly trying to come up with a certain
outcome. That’s very distasteful to people,” one official told the
paper.
Since 2006, the USCCB has received $19 million from the federal
government for the work it does providing food, shelter and counseling
to sex-trafficking victims. But in 2009, the American Civil Liberties
Union sued the government for granting the money to the pro-life USCCB,
claiming it’s an “unconstitutional” use of taxpayer dollars. That
case was heard by a federal judge in Massachusetts on Oct. 18; a
decision is pending.
Though HHS officially denies committing any kind of religious
discrimination, The Post reports that internal documents reveal
an independent review board and career staff members had recommended
that USCCB’s contract be renewed, but “senior political
appointees” in the department overrode them.
According to the review board, the new recipients of the grant money
did not score as well as the USCCB — leading several of the career
officials to refuse to sign off on the documents awarding them the
grant. . . .
Niagara
ARPA Group Ordered to Take Down Pro-Life Memorial
(October
5, 2011 - www.ARPACanada.ca)
In a grassroots effort to draw attention to the plight of unborn children,
a Niagara ARPA group has been threatened with legal action if they
do not
remove a pro-life memorial which they erected to testify to the deaths of
over 100,000 unborn children in Canada each year.
On Saturday, October 1st, several members of the ARPA Niagara group
erected a memorial honouring victims of abortion on a vacant parcel of
private property in a high-traffic area just Southeast of Industrial Park
Road in Smithville, Ontario. The memorial was constructed using straw
bales on a flatbed trailer stacked like bleachers and one hundred white
crosses were inserted into the bales. Organizers posted a 48" x
48" sign that read 'Each cross represents 1,000 unborn children
aborted every year in Canada,' on one side of the display and a similar
48" x 96" sign featuring a picturing of a healthy unborn child
alongside the Bible verse "I praise you Lord because I am fearfully
and wonderfully made... You knit me together in my mother's womb... Psalm
139."
On Tuesday October 3rd, the Township of West Lincoln issued an order for
the removal of the memorial, citing the memorial violated the township's
zoning and sign size regulations. The township has set an October
10th deadline for the removal of the memorial. Local officials,
including West Lincoln mayor Douglas Joyner noted the removal order was
initiated by a local complaint. Unfortunately, local officials have
been unwilling to elaborate on the nature of the complaints or how many
complaints were received despite several inquiries by local ARPA chair Ed
VanderVegte. The township's actions seem to be
motivated by the
content of the memorial rather than an actual by-law infraction.
ARPA Niagara Vice-chair Ralph Vis released an official statement, noting:
"Roadside crosses and tributes to fallen soldiers are common across
Southern Ontario honouring the victims
of a traffic fatality or tragedy on
the battlefield and pointing fellow drivers and citizens to the dignity
and value of life. So why is a memorial that exposes the ongoing
violence committed
against some of the most vulnerable citizens in Canada
being selectively targeted by the Township of West Lincoln? By
forcing the removal of ARPA Niagara's abortion memorial, the
Township of
West Lincoln is exposing a biased position on the abortion issue as well
as restricting freedom of speech and religious expression."
APRA
Canada requests that you pray for the ARPA group, that there may be a good
outcome on the matter and that the message of life can continue to be
voiced in Ontario and
throughout Canada.
To
voice your concerns about West Lincoln's affront to freedom of speech
contact the Mayor or Township.
For further inquiries, please contact ARPA Canada's Ontario Director and
Legal Counsel André Schutten 613-297-5172 or andre@arpacanada.ca
United States:
Your
Insurance May Already Cover 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs'
Health and Human Services ruled last week that insurance plans must
provide contraception with no copayment.
Tobin Grant, Aug. 12, 2011, Christianity Today onlineposted 8/12/2011
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced
last week that beginning next year, all insurance plans must provide a
wider range of services to women, including coverage for all Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved contraceptives. These include drugs that
pro-life groups call "abortion-inducing
drugs." The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land called the
decision "an
abomination." However, since 29 states already require
contraception coverage, many Americans already belong to insurance
prescription plans that cover these medications.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed last year will expand
the requirement to the entire country, requiring that all insurance
policies provide preventative services. As in the states that already
require coverage, preventative services would include all FDA-approved
contraceptive methods. The Health and Human Services ruling would go
further, however, since insurance companies would be required to provide
contraception with no copayment.
The controversy over the ruling mostly revolves around two
contraceptives approved by the FDA, ella (ulipristal acetate) and
Plan B (levonorgestre). These drugs work by
making it unlikely that an embryo will be able to attach to the wall of
the uterus.
For pro-life groups, such medications are morally (if not
medically) abortifacients, drugs that cause an abortion. They are not
abortifacients legally, however. According to medicaldefinitions:
— Pregnancy is a condition of the mother, beginning when
the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
— Contraception lowers the chances of pregnancy; it
includes medication that blocks fertilization, but also drugs that
prohibit a pregnancy after conception.
— Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A drug
that works before the embryo attaches to mother is contraception; one that
occurs after pregnancy starts is an abortifacient.
Drugs such as ella and Plan
B are approved for contraceptive use because they prevent
pregnancy. According to the
FDA, the drugs are emergency contraceptives that should be taken
within five days of "a contraceptive failure or unprotected
intercourse." They are not intended as routine contraceptives. Women
who suspect that they are pregnant are advised to not take the drug.
Richard Land from the SBC dismissed such definitions. The
issue, said Land, was the ending of the embryo, not the pregnancy. . . . .
WASHINGTON,
D.C., July 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– A committee of U.S. House lawmakers voted Thursday to recognize the
plight of a blind pro-life Chinese activist who has been imprisoned and
viciously beaten by authorities for exposing a local program of forced
abortions and sterilizations.
The
House Foreign Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass U.S. Rep. Chris
Smith’s (R-NJ) amendment to the State Department 2012 appropriation
bill, supporting Chen Guangcheng and his wife, who have been punished for
Chen’s pro-life activities and are currently under house arrest. Chinese
officials have gone so far as to lock down the village where Chen is
imprisoned in a bid to keep the human rights activist from communicating
awith the outside world.
Chen was arrested in 2006 for exposing evidence of government officials
performing 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations on
women in Linyi County, Shandong Province in a single year. Time
Magazine named him one of “2006’s Top 100 People Who Shape Our
World” and he was given the 2007 Magsaysay award, known as Asia’s
Nobel Peace Prize.
The
House committee vote was praised by human rights activists who have been
trying to raise political and public awareness about Chen’s treatment at
the hands of China’s communist authorities.
China
Aid and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers are advocating for Chen’s
freedom, saying the activist’s health is declining from repeated severe
beatings and malnutrition while under arrest. The activists cite a letter
they say was recently smuggled out of China by Chen’s wife, Yuan
Weijing, in which she expressed grave concern about Chen’s chances for
survival.
“We
thank Rep. Chris Smith for his leadership in sponsoring this far-reaching
amendment, which urges the Chinese government to stop harassing the Chen
family, to release them from house arrest, and to arrange for immediate
medical treatment,” said Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s
Rights Without Frontiers. “We thank Rep. Chris Smith for his leadership
in sponsoring this far-reaching amendment, which urges the Chinese
government to stop harassing the Chen family, to release them from house
arrest, and to arrange for immediate medical treatment.”
Smith’s
amendment also urges the Obama administration to reach out through its
embassy and establish contact with Chen. It also decries China’s program
of forced abortion and coercive family planning measures.
“This historic amendment also raises the issue of the harassment,
arrest, disappearance and disbarment of Chinese human rights lawyers and
defenders,” added Bob Fu, President of China Aid. “We hope to see the
Obama administration take effective action on behalf of Chen and other
human rights defenders who are suffering incalculable harm as a result of
their courage to stand up for human rights in China.”
Federal Judge Suspends NYC
Ordinances Targeting Pregnancy Centers
by Catherine Snow
In the “abortion capital” of the nation, a federal judge offered
a surprising rebuke against New York City officials on Wednesday for
violating the free speech rights of local pregnancy centers.
The city council had approved in March, by a vote of 39-9-1, a
requirement for pregnancy resource centers to post signs and tell
clients what services are not offered — specifically abortion and
contraception. The ordinance also puts the centers at risk of costly
legal action.
Judge William Pauley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York also granted the pregnancy centers’ request for a
temporary injunction — or suspension — from the ordinance.
The judge wrote that the law’s “over-expansiveness is evident
from its very language,” and would “upend established free speech
protections.
“While Defendants apparently regard an assembly of people as an
economic commodity, this Court does not. Under such a view, flyers
for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance,
or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely
because they assemble listeners for the speaker.”
CeCe Heil, senior council for the American Center for Law and
Justice, which represented the centers, called the court’s action a
resounding victory and is confident the law will ultimately be struck
down. In January, a U.S. District Court in Baltimore struck down a
similar law in Maryland.
“This law, which forces crisis pregnancy centers to adopt and
express views about abortion and contraception that they strongly
disagree with, is constitutionally flawed,” Heil said. “The court
clearly understood that this law punishes pro-life advocates.”
The Alliance Defense Fund also sued against the city over the law, as
it threatens nonmedical, pro-life centers with steep fines and potential
closure if they don’t post signs and publish in their ads that the
city health department encourages women to go elsewhere.
The Centers for Disease Control has reported that nearly 41percent of
all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. Yet, the pregnancy
centers are saving lives. Expectant Mother Care Centers, the plaintiff
in the case, has served more than 100,000 women since 1985, and helped
save over 40,000 pre-born babies.
Pro-Lifers
[Cecelia Von Dehn and Don Spratt] Convicted and Fined for Warning Others
of Bubble Zone Law
VANCOUVER, June 20, 2011 (RKRNews) — Two prominent pro-life activists
were convicted of violating BC’s infamous “bubble zone” law in
provincial court today, but will serve no jail time—and their
convictions and sentences will be appealed. Don Spratt was fined $1,000
fine and sentenced to two years’ probation; Cissy von Dehn was sentenced
to two years’ probation.
Both were arrested June 19, 2009 for standing inside the “bubble zone”
outside a building at 2525 Commercial Drive that houses an abortion mill,
passing out copies of the Access to Abortion Services Act (the “bubble
zone” law) while wearing sandwich-board signs that said “WARNING! YOU
CAN BE ARRESTED UNDER BILL 48” and “BE INFORMED. READ BILL 48”.
The previous day, Spratt had learned that the Supreme Court of Canada
refused to hear his appeal of an earlier conviction under the same law,
when he had carried a cross made of 2x4s and a small sign reading “you
shall not kill” into the bubble zone.
Speaking for both accused, defence counsel Doug Christie said the
conviction would be appealed on four grounds:
• The court ruled that the Access to Abortion Services Act is a
“strict liability” statute, which means that proving mens rea (intent)
is not necessary for a conviction. But Christie (as Mrs. Von Dehn’s
counsel) and Ron MacDonald (Mr. Spratt’s counsel) both argued that the
Act is not a “strict liability” statute.
“They were convicted because of who they are—prominent pro-life
activists,” said Christie. “But it doesn’t matter who does the
action, it’s only the action itself that the law addresses.”
• The court erred in not recognizing their “due diligence”—the
fact that they had taken steps to determine that what they did—passing
our copies of a law exactly as published by the government of BC—was not
a crime.
“In no jurisdiction could distributing copies of a law be construed to
be a violation of that same law,” said Christie.
• The court erred in defining “officially induced error” too
narrowly.
Mrs. von Dehn had been inside the zone carrying identical warning signs on
three previous occasions, and police had informed her that her actions
were not violations of the Act.
• The court erred in not limiting the meaning of the terms “protest”
and “sidewalk interference”.
No evidence was introduced at trial that anyone on the sidewalk had been
impeded by the presence of Spratt and von Dehn; nor had they said anything
about abortion.
Before sentencing, Spratt made a statement explaining why he felt
compelled to oppose abortion in Canada . In 40 years of assisting the
oppressed in impoverished nations around the world, he said, he has seen
how tyranny develops: first, human rights are crushed when those who
cannot defend themselves are oppressed or killed; then, civil rights are
also destroyed, as anyone who attempts to defend the helpless is punished.
“The Canadian government, like all tyrants before them, are not only
committing human rights violations against the pre-born, but have moved on
to deny the civil rights of anyone who dares to speak up or intervene on
behalf of the downtrodden. True to the pattern of repressive governments
everywhere, our constitutional protections are swept aside, and off to
jail we go!” he said.
“To be arrested and jailed, simply for informing the public of the
existence of a law that could send them to prison, looks and feels a lot
like despotism to me!”
He quoted Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, when he introduced the Canadian
Bill of Rights in 1960: “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right,
free to oppose what I believe is wrong, free to choose those who shall
govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself
and all mankind.”
Comparing abortion to slavery—both are the abuse of one person’s
rights for the benefit of another, according to legal scholar Charles I.
Lugosi—Mr. Spratt also quoted US President Abraham Lincoln: “Abraham
Lincoln said, ‘You cannot have the right to do what is wrong’, and
‘If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.’ I say, ‘If
abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong; and we cannot have a right to
choose to do wrong’.”
Mr. Spratt’s full 2,300-word statement is to be made available on-line
at: www.renaissancecanada.ca
Pennsylvania, Kansas Work to
Regulate Abortion Clinics
by Jennifer Mesko on CitizenLink, Apr. 12, 2011
The Pennsylvania House Health Committee has passed
legislation that would regulate abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical
facilities.
The bill comes in response to Philadelphia’s “House of
Horrors,” an abortion clinic that was shut down last year when
investigators discovered grotesque conditions and the remains of preborn
babies. The clinic’s owner, abortionist Kermit Gosnell, remains jailed
on eight murder charges. Prosecutors say he routinely killed babies who
survived late-term abortions.
Prior to the raid on Gosnell’s clinic, the state had failed to
inspect any abortion clinics for more than 15 years.
“Pennsylvania’s abortion centers have been hiding behind a veil
of politically motivated secrecy,” said Michael Geer, president of the
Pennsylvania Family Council. “No inspections, virtually no follow-up
on malpractice and injury allegations against abortionists, and lax
rules and regulations that left women endangered. . . . .
Two More Philadelphia-Area
Abortion Clinics Shuttered Following Inspections
by Jennifer Mesko, CitizenLink, Mar. 10, 2011
In early November, two Philadelphia-area abortion clinics closed and
the abortionist retired after a state inspection revealed nightmarish
conditions at the facilities. Then Pennsylvania officials waited more than
three months to say anything about the case.
Only after a drug raid in February 2010 revealed horrific conditions at
the Philadelphia abortion clinic of Kermit Gosnell did the state Health
Department decide to inspect all of the state’s 22 clinics — for the
first time in more than 15 years.
In early November, the state discovered disgusting conditions at two
separate clinics — including fetal remains in cabinets and outside.
Abortionist Soleiman M. Soli, 73, decided to close both of his Abortion as
an Alternative Inc. clinics and retire. The reports were provided recently
to The Associated Press by the office of Gov. Tom Corbett.
Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said he
wasn’t shocked by the news.
“Are we surprised that inspections at two more Philadelphia-area
abortion centers uncovered atrocious, unsanitary conditions? No. We
expect more revelations. Are we surprised that ‘pro-choice’
politicians are still trying to protect the abortion industry? No. It’s
part and parcel of their practices, and pro-lifers must band together to
say ‘No more!’”
Gosnell is charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman
and seven babies who were born alive and then killed. Investigators
discovered the remains of babies strewn through the clinic.
Just miles away, the scenes were eerily similar.
At Soli’s Bensalem clinic, inspectors found the remains of preborn
babies left outside the building in unsecured containers, AP reported.
Inspectors say drugs and equipment required to resuscitate patients were
missing. And they say dozens of expired drugs were found, some dating back
decades. . . .
Abortion Funding and
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Divide Congress
by Jennifer Mesko
With the government just one day away from shutting down, Congress
continues to debate the budget.
Life advocates have been pushing lawmakers to support spending bills
only if they contain four key provisions to: defund Planned Parenthood;
reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which prevents federal funds from
going to international groups that promote or perform abortions;
defund the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund; and stop government-funded
abortions in Washington, D.C.
“A large majority of Americans, regardless of their view on
abortion, believe that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for
abortion,” said Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action.
Unfortunately, the spending measure that passed in the U.S. House
today defunds abortion in D.C., but fails to address the other pro-life
priorities.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “ideological matters” are
the only problems in reaching a budget solution. . . . .
THIRD BC INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
STATES BC IS WRONG TO BAN TOPICS:
BRITISH COLUMBIA NOT MEETING INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS
Current
Information & Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has agreed with
her predecessors that no subject should be off limits under British
Columbia’s Information & Privacy Act. Denham took it a step further
and charged that British Columbia is not meeting international standards.
In
a letter dated November 8, 2011, Denham stated:
“I agree
with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the
subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.
The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that
all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of
FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion
service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.”
Stated open access
advocate Ted Gerk:
“Three
BC Information & Privacy Commissioners have agreed that Section 22.1
of our Information & Privacy Act is dated and wrong. Three.
The topic of abortion was declared off-limits by the former NDP government
in 2001, trying to use law to silence their political opponents. Three of
our OIP Commissioners have now stated that in a democracy, entire subjects
should never be off-limits. It is now time for the government to
act. Do they believe in the ability of the men and women they place to run
the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner or not?”
Furthermore,
there is ongoing information failure with abortion statistics in British
Columbia. For example, we can know that our local hospital is performing
abortions, but access to complication or health data is banned. Individual
clinics do not report their statistics to the Canadian Institute for
Health Information (CIHI) so there is no accurate health data on even the
amount of abortions performed in British Columbia.”
Copies
of the letters from Elizabeth Denham, Paul Fraser, QC, and David Loukidelis
can be found at:
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CALL TED GERK @ 250-870-6363
Pro-life
laws work: study
[Readers
of the BCPTL website will perhaps be aware that in British Columbia no
involvement of parents is legally necessary for teen-agers who have
abortions. Your fourteen-year old daughter (if you have one) can
come home having had an abortion as a result of a school-based refererral
to an abortion-providing agency, without her parents' consent or counsel
or even knowledge, and it is all legal.]
WASHINGTON,
March 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new analysis of
abortion data across all 50 U.S. states has found solid evidence that
legislation intended to reduce abortion, such as parental involvement
laws, is effective.
Michael
New, Ph.D., an assistant professor of political science at the University
of Alabama, recently published the survey entitled “Analyzing
the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era”
in State Politics and Policy Quarterly, the top state politics journal in
the country. The study evaluated abortion data from nearly every state
over a span of 21 years, from 1985 to 2005, a longer period than nearly
any other peer-reviewed study.
New
drew from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, whose data on abortion rates provided what New found was a
clear indication that Medicaid abortion funding restrictions, parental
involvement laws and informed consent laws effectively lower abortion
rates.
Parental
involvement laws specifically were found to reduce in-state abortion rates
for minors by approximately 15 percent.
The
professor notes that his study is part of a substantial body of academic
literature showing that such laws are effective, although his latest work
aimed to overcome shortcomings of previous studies by analyzing many types
of abortion restrictions, as well as examining a broader range of years
and states.
Family
Research Council President Tony Perkins said the study by New, a former
adjunct fellow with the Family Research Council, confirms the conservative
group’s support for laws that strengthen families against the tragedy of
abortion.
“Almost
invariably it is a parent, not a government employee or business entity,
who cares most about a daughter’s well-being. This is why we strongly
support commonsense laws that reaffirm parents’ unique role as the
decision-makers in the life of their child,” said Perkins.
“Politicians
can talk about ‘reducing abortion rates,’ but if they truly want to do
so they will support parental-involvement legislation and defund such
organizations as Planned Parenthood that perform or promotion
abortions,” he added.
(Due to the volume of response to this show,
please be advised that our RKR video production team will release a
feature video of Angelina Steenstra’s story in a few days time.
For those who have requested a copy of the show for immediate
distribution, be advised that a copy of the archived show is now available
and can be heard/downloaded at RoadKill
Radio.com. Mrs. Streenstra is speaking today, details below.)
The
Abortion Reality - 40 years later, 15-year-old date rape victim relates
her gripping story on RoadKill Radio
March 29, 2011 (RKR News) — For a full hour Tuesday night,
RoadKill Radio listeners were gripped by the powerful personal story of a
woman—then only a 15-year-old girl—whose life was forever changed by
date rape and its abortion aftermath.
Angelina
Steenstra of Whitby, Ontario will tell her story again at the
University of BC on Thursday, March 31, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., outside
the Student Union Building on the North Plaza; and at Simon Fraser
University on Friday, April 1, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the outdoor
covered area on the Convocation Mall in the Academic Quadrangle.
“This is the kind of story RoadKill Radio exists
for, telling the truth about the real consequences of abortion and other
politically driven agendas that are ignored by the downstream media”
said co-host Kari Simpson after the broadcast. “We give a voice to the
voiceless. We provide a stage for the truth to be told.”
‘I stand before you accused of mischief’: Arrested pro-lifer
speaks out in court
TORONTO, March 28 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– After spending 48 days in jail, pro-life activist Mary Wagner stood
trial today for offering assistance to distressed pregnant women in the
vestibule of a Toronto abortion facility. Wagner represented
herself in court, reading a
statement in what one witness called “a little bit of history
being made.”
While the crown argued that the abortion facility
should have a right to operate their business without interference from
Wagner, in her statement of defense Wagner concentrated on the plight of
unborn children and their mothers.
“I stand before you accused of mischief,” Wagner
began. She pointed out that the ‘business’ in question “exists
almost exclusively for the purpose of destroying children in their
mothers’ wombs; under the guise of serving women, helpless babies are
killed there, and their mothers are left wounded.”
Although the small courtroom was full and included
several pro-abortion activists, there was a hush during Wagner’s
presentation.
“I have attempted to reach out to women who are
considering abortion as a solution to the difficult circumstances in
which they find themselves,” she said. “My presence was peaceful,
and stems from an acknowledgment of the fact that a new human life
exists from the moment of conception.”
At the conclusion of her statement she asked the judge
for a moment of silence for the unborn. The judge denied the
request.
The judge then announced that he disregarded Wagner’s
statement since he said it did not pertain to the matter at hand.
He found Wagner guilty of mischief and sentenced her to one year of
probation with an order not to go near any abortion facility in Toronto.
Wagner was arrested February 9th after peacefully
handing out roses to pregnant mothers entering the abortion centre.
On a small card with each rose, Wagner wrote: “You were made to love
and to be loved.”
“Your goodness is greater than the difficulties of
your situation. Circumstances in life change. A new life, however tiny,
brings the promise of unrepeatable joy. There is still hope!”
At least one couple is
known to have left the centre that day, rose in hand, smiling
thankfully at pro-life witnesses on the sidewalk outside.
Alissa Golob, leader of Campaign Life Coalition Youth,
attended the trial with a group of pro-life supporters. Golob told
LifeSiteNews that she and her friends felt it was a privilege to be on
hand for the trial. She described the silence that greeted
Wagner’s statement and said that it struck awe in the hearts of the
pro-lifers present, encouraging them to continue to strive for the right
to life of unborn children.
Gibbons
case going to Supreme Court
by Tony Gosgnach
TORONTO, February 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Linda Gibbons has spent long years over the past decade and a half in
dank prison cells that, as she said recently, sometimes dip below 10C in
temperature. But a development out of Ottawa has given her hope that some
measure of justice might finally be served.
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that it will hear an appeal
filed by her lawyer seeking to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal
decision reinstating her criminal conviction on a charge of disobeying a
court order.
The charge had originally been quashed by a lower court judge on the
grounds that the matter was improperly heard in a criminal, rather than
civil, court. The 1994 injunction relating to the charge had been decreed
in a civil court, yet the Ontario Attorney-General’s office has, from
the beginning, consistently charged her criminally.
Gibbons’s lawyer Daniel Santoro has held that that is an improper way
of dealing with the matter and has sought to have the Supreme Court decide
the issue once and for all.
With the news that the highest court will indeed hear the case, Santoro
and co-counsel Nicholas Rouleau will now be preparing the voluminous
briefs needed to argue their side of the case. They will also be getting
set to make their debut journey to the nation’s capital for a Supreme
Court hearing, likely to take place this fall. Two Crown lawyers will, in
turn, represent the opposing position of the Ontario Ministry of the
Attorney-General.
Each side will have an hour to present its case, with 10 minutes
allotted to intervenors, should any come forward.
Most of the work will have been done beforehand, in the written briefs
that could reach up to 40 pages in length. If Gibbons wins the case, she
will be acquitted of the charge and there will be important implications
for any future prosecution should she breach the terms of the injunction.
Most especially, she will no longer be liable to be tried in a criminal
court.
In a related pending matter, there will be three days of hearings March
7, 8 and 9 at the College Park courthouse, Yonge and College Streets in
downtown Toronto, regarding an abuse of process motion put forth by
Santoro regarding a different charge of disobeying a court order laid
against Gibbons. He is arguing that hearings in 2001 regarding the
injunction improperly went forward without Gibbons’s consent, as she was
legally unrepresented at the time.
Worsening matters has been the fact that the Crown attorney’s office
somehow lost a letter advising that Gibbons’s counsel was no longer
representing her. Such conduct by the Crown, Santoro has argued, is
abusive and a dereliction of duty.
Kansas
Travesty: 249 child-age abortions over 3 years, just four sex abuse
reports--Kline Hearings
KOPEKA, Kansas, February 24, 2011
(LifeSiteNews.com) – Evidence entered into the Phill Kline ethics trial
Wednesday revealed that state agencies had received reports of 249
abortions on children under the age of 15 years old between 2001-2003, but
that abortion providers, who are mandatory reporters, had sent in only
four reports of child sexual abuse.
Tom Williams, Kline’s chief investigator
when he was attorney general (and later district attorney), said that he
made the discovery in 2003 during a broader effort meant to tackle
underreporting of child sexual abuse in the state.
Williams testified to a sworn affidavit,
entered into evidence Tuesday, that abortion records from the Kansas
Department of Health and Education (KDHE) showed an aggregate 249
“termination of pregnancy” reports on females under 15 years for 2001,
2002, and into 2003. Abortion providers are required by law to send
reports to KDHE with statistical information surrounding the abortion
(which does not include specific patient information.)
However, they are also required by law to
send in sex abuse reports in such cases to the Department of Social and
Rehabilitative Services (SRS). But records of child sex abuse reports
subpoenaed by Kline’s office in 2003 indicated that over the same
time-period, only four reports of child sex abuse had been sent to the
SRS.
That same sworn affidavit showed 166
abortions occurred on children 14 years old and younger between 2002-2003.
Kline had testified to that particular number on Tuesday, saying that
Comprehensive Health Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (in
Johnson County) and George Tiller had each reported only one instance of
child sex abuse.
Williams testified that the massive
disparity (in the 2001-2003 period) between the KDHE and SRS records was
documented on a spreadsheet, and was one of the reasons that prompted AG
Phill Kline to launch an investigation into the apparent failure of
abortion clinics to fulfill their duties as mandatory reporters.
Williams explained that the process of
data-crunching took time, because SRS gave them 19,042 individual reports
of child sex abuse. After thoroughly examining them all, and weeding out
the duplicates, Williams testified that they boiled it down to 6,797
reports of child sex abuse in Kansas between 2001-2003.
But Williams also added that he was looking
into the SRS reports in order to find a pattern of reporting that could
“exculpate” providers.
“And I couldn’t find it,” Williams
told Kline attorney Mark Stafford on direct examination. He said he even
failed to find evidence that could show employees reporting the suspected
child rapes.
He pointed to the example of a 10-year-old
from California, who received a late-term abortion from abortionist George
Tiller at his Wichita Women’s Heath Care (WHC) clinic in Wichita.
Although Tiller reported the late-term abortion to KDHE, no report as
mandated by law was filed with SRS. Williams said his assistant Jared Reed
could not find anything in SRS reports that looked similar or identical to
the KDHE record.
Williams later found out that California
authorities had apprehended and prosecuted the perpetrator of the crime,
but Tiller had nonetheless failed to fulfill his obligations under state
law. He said that he never learned the 10-year-old’s identity, but felt
that he had the right situation based on the time period.
He also explained that the 10-year-old, had
Tiller reported it, “would have been a checkmark in their favor.”
Williams testified that they did not find
an “isolated case” of non-reporting, but a pattern of non-compliance
by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and George Tiller.
“If there is a
pattern or practice of non-compliance, that is something a prosecutor
would want to consider,” Williams said.
Bernard
Nathanson, rest in peace
Father Raymond J. de Souza, National
Post · Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011
Perhaps the most influential graduate of McGill's medical school
spent more than 30 years trying to undo what he had done. Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, who died on Tuesday, at 84, graduated from McGill in 1949,
and returned to practice obstetrics and gynecology in his native New
York.
In 1968 he cofounded the National Association for the Repeal of
Abortion Laws (now called the National Abortion Rights Action League),
and became a leading campaigner for the unlimited abortion licence in
New York and across America. When New York repealed its abortion laws
in 1970, he became director of the world's largest abortion clinic. By
his own estimate he was responsible for some 75,000 abortions over the
next decade, performing 5,000 of them himself. During that period he
personally aborted his own child, after impregnating his mistress.
But by 1979, convinced by ultrasound technology that abortion was
the destruction of an innocent human life, he stopped doing abortions
and became a pro-life activist. . . . .
In 1985 Nathanson produced the film The Silent Scream, an
ultrasound image of an actual abortion. Bringing the reality of
abortion to the light caused an enormous controversy, as proponents of
the abortion licence had to confront what a child being destroyed in
the womb looked like. For the pro-life movement it was a major
milestone, as it brought new energy to the cause when many were eager
to claim that abortion was a settled issue.
It remains the most unsettling of all issues, and Nathanson was
deeply unsettled about his role in the 1.5 million annual abortions in
the United States. His public policy conversion was but a first step
and while remarkable, not unprecedented. On abortion and other issues,
changes of position do take place. Yet more difficult was confronting
the mystery of evil in his own life.
"Abortion is now a monster so unimaginably gargantuan that
even to think of stuffing it back into its cage ... is ludicrous
beyond words," he wrote. "Yet that is our charge -- a
herculean endeavour. I am one of those who helped usher in this
barbaric age." . . . .
A 69-year-old Philadelphia doctor who performed abortions was charged
by prosecutors on Wednesday with the murder of seven newborns who were
killed with scissors and of a female patient who died of an overdose of
anesthetics.
The Philadelphia
District Attorney’s Office said Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a family
practitioner who had not been certified in obstetrics or gynecology,
oversaw a medical practice that regularly performed late-term abortions.
On at least seven occasions, babies born alive during the sixth,
seventh and eighth month of pregnancies were killed by having their
spinal cords severed with a pair of scissors, District Attorney Seth
Williams said in a statement.
A grand jury investigation found that although complaints about Dr.
Gosnell and his Women Medical Society clinic in west Philadelphia had
been made to a variety of government health and medical licensing
officials for more than 20 years — including about the deaths of women
during routine abortions — the doctor was never officially sanctioned..
. . [More]
Toronto
pro-lifer arrested, reporter’s camera seized
TORONTO, Ontario, December 23, 2010
(LifeSiteNews.com)
- Pro-life witness Mary Wagner was arrested again by Toronto
police this morning as she spoke to women waiting to obtain
abortions. One of the officers seized a reporter’s video
camera, deleted its contents, and refused to identify himself.
When Wagner arrived at the Bloor
West Village Women’s Clinic at 8:30 this morning, she entered
the facility’s waiting room and began encouraging women to keep
their babies.
She handed out crystal angel
ornaments with a card reading, “When you take off the wrapping,
you will see a little gift…when you give birth to your child,
you will see a priceless treasure.”
The police arrived shortly and
escorted her downstairs, but let her off with a warning.
Once they had left, Wagner went back to the abortion facility
upstairs to speak with more women.
The police came back with three
cars and took her away at 11:30 a.m.
Alissa Golob, head of Campaign Life
Coalition’s youth division, did sidewalk counseling outside the
building and videotaped the events for LifeSiteNews.
Golob explained that she tried to
convince the officers not to follow through with the arrest.
“I stressed to the cop that he had freedom of conscience - and
that he did not need to arrest Mary if it went against his
intrinsic moral values,” she said.
She also said that at one point she
was able to explain to onlookers in a room where she was ordered
to go by the police, what Mary was doing. “One man even told me
that the reason he was there was because his friend was in the
abortuary, and I told him to go and tell her she had another
choice,” said Golob. “So he left the lobby and went to
talk to her.”
After Wagner had been dragged to
the police car, a male officer seized Golob’s camera.
“He grabbed the camera out of my
hands and proceeded to delete all my videos,” she said.
“Becoming immensely infuriated I demanded to know what his badge
number was, to which he replied by storming away without
acknowledging my existence, other than to hand me back my empty
camera.”
The British Columbia native was
just let out of jail a few weeks ago after an arrest in Toronto on
November 21. She spent four months in the Milton Vanier
Centre for Women earlier this year after another arrest in April,
but was acquitted in July.
Golob described Wagner as a
“modern-day pro-life hero.” “As I watched the cop car
pull away, ... I couldn’t help but think how symbolic this event
really was,” said Golob. “Just as our Mother Mary said
‘yes’ in answering His call to give birth to our Lord, Mary
Wagner also said ‘yes’ to His command to uphold and affirm the
culture of life.”
LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back
from the Toronto police by press time.
Bill
for Roxanne's Law Defeated
From a December 15, 2010, e-mail from Campaign
Life Coalition:
Despite the hard-fought and courageous work of MPs
like Rod Bruinooge, plus many pro-life groups and some religious leaders,
Roxanne's Law (i.e. Bill C-510) was defeated in a vote of
97-178.
We thank all of you who contacted your member of parliament and urged them
to vote in favour of this bill to protect pregnant women and their unborn
children from abortion coercion.
To learn more about the vote and to watch a video showing the MPs standing
and voting YEA or NAY, visit
our special web page .
BCPTL Editor's Note:
To see how individual
members of parliament voted on Bill 510, click
here.
Abortion
coercion law debated in Parliament - vote on Wed.
OTTAWA,
Ontario, December 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Roxanne’s Law, the
Canadian private members bill seeking to ban abortion coercion, is set for
a vote at second reading Wednesday, after it was debated Monday morning.
“Mothers
should never have to make a choice between protecting themselves or the
child they love,” said Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South),
the bill’s sponsor, during Monday’s debate. Bruinooge, who
serves as chair of the parliamentary pro-life caucus, introduced the bill
in April, and it had its first hour of debate on November 1st.
Also
known as C-510, the bill is named after Roxanne Fernando, a Manitoba woman
whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her into having an abortion after she
became pregnant in 2007. After refusing to have the unborn child
killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a snow bank.
If
passed on Wednesday, the bill will go to a parliamentary committee for
further consideration.
In
his speech Monday, Bruinooge criticized those who claim the bill is
“redundant” simply because coercion is already banned in the Criminal
Code. This argument, he said, is simply a “cover” for the
bill’s opponents. “The fact that no one has ever been charged
with coercing an abortion in Canada is absolute proof that clarification
of the law is desperately needed,” he explained.
Criminal
law is meant to “state our most important social values and to send a
clear message expressing society’s rejection of, and intolerance of, a
specific act,” he continued. “[Roxanne’s Law] reflects a
social value about the unacceptability of forcing a pregnant woman into
ending the pregnancy she wants to continue.”
“Should
one choose to vote against Bill C-510, it will be seen as a choice to turn
a blind eye to a horrible injustice,” he concluded.
The
bill was supported with speeches by Bruinooge, Kelly Block
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC), Bev Shipley
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC), and David Anderson (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat
Board, CPC).
Speaking
in opposition were France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ), Niki Ashton
(Churchill, NDP), and Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC).
Block
emphasized that many women are strongly in favour of this bill, contrary
to certain MPs’ claims. “The evidence completely dispels the
notion expressed last month in this chamber that women do not want this
protection,” she said. “Nothing I have seen, heard or read could
be further from the truth.”
While
not all abortion coercion ends in violence against the woman, she pointed
out that “any successful attempt at abortion coercion will always result
in the death of that woman’s wanted unborn child.”
“Turning
a blind eye to this reality violates Canadian’ high standards of justice
and human rights,” she added.
“We
need to promote a culture of respect for women who make the choice to be
mothers,” she said. “We need to give Canadian women the
assurance that the law would be there to protect them when they take on
the monumental responsibility of bringing children into the world.”
Ashton,
however, dismissed the bill as “a front to attack a woman’s right to
choose,” and expressed outrage that such a debate is still taking place
“in the year 2010.”
The
bill, she said, “attempts to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights
through indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be
criminalized.”
Decrying
the efforts of pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities, Ashton
complained that “we see a much greater movement to coerce women not to
get an abortion, often with very aggressive tactics.”
She
claimed further that the bill is “redundant” because coercion is
already illegal under the Criminal Code.
Bev
Shipley, on the other hand, pointed out that the bill does not “restrict
access to freedom of choice” in any way. “The truth is the bill
actually expands the pregnant woman’s choice and freedom to protect her
against anyone who uses coercive means to take away her freedom to
continue her pregnancy,” he said. “The only choice restricted by
this bill is the choice of a third party who wants to impose an abortion
on a woman against her will.”
Shipley
also pointed out that similar laws are in place in other “free
democratic societies” like Germany, Italy, France, and some U.S. states.
David
Anderson rebuked claims, made by Ashton and others, that Fernando’s
death was not related to coercion, and was thus being misused to promote
the bill. “The crown prosecutor at the sentencing hearing was very
clear when he talked about the fact that this was specifically a motive by
these young men who took her life,” he explained. “We need to
remember that young lady lost her life over this issue.”
ACCRA, GHANA, November 25 (C-FAM) Earlier this month, a
UN office partnered with abortion heavyweights to push for widespread
legal abortion at a conference in Ghana, Africa.
Conference participants insisted that access to “safe
and legal abortion” is central to reducing maternal mortality, and
attacked organized religion and restrictive laws as being obstacles to
preventing maternal deaths.
Aissatou Gaye of the UN Economic Commission for Africa
(UNECA) delivered the keynote address.
Gaye stressed that “restrictive policies” and laws were major
contributors to unsafe abortion, since most unsafe abortions occur where
abortion is illegal.
Gaye lamented the fact that many African countries still
have restrictive abortion laws: “Despite the fact that the Beijing
Platform for Action called on countries as long ago as 1995 to review laws
that discriminate against women—which restrictive abortion laws clearly
do, since men cannot get pregnant—very little change has happened in
this arena.”
In addition to legal restrictions, some conference
sponsors blamed religion and churches for putting a “stranglehold” on
policymakers. Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah, Ipas vice-president for Africa,
called restrictive abortion laws “archaic” and complained that
attempts to liberalize laws “inherited from colonial administrations”
have been circumvented by “anti-abortion churches.”
Gaye’s interpretation of the Beijing Platform for
Action runs counter to conventional understanding at the UN where
delegates have repeatedly stressed that the platform does not create any
right to abortion and laws on abortion should be decided by states.
According to a UN factsheet, the legal status of
abortion is the sovereign right of each nation and that the United Nations
does not provide support for abortion or abortion related activities
anywhere in the world.
UNECA's mandate is to promote the economic and social
development in and among countries in the region and to promote
international cooperation for Africa's development. While the UN is not
supposed to take a position on abortion, in 2006 UN agencies including
UNICEF and UNFPA came under fire for intervening in Nicaragua’s decision
to ban abortion.
Gaye expressed her hope that the UN office could
continue to partner with conference organizers and welcoming the results
of the conference as a guide for UNECA’s work on “women’s rights and
sexual and reproductive health.”tic
While conference organizers argued that legalizing
abortion would lower maternal mortality, critics take issue with the
abortion focus, pointing out that the lack of modern medicine and quality
health care, not the prohibition of abortion, are the biggest contributors
to high maternal mortality rates.
Entitled “Keeping Our Promise: Addressing Unsafe
Abortion in Africa,” the conference was co-sponsored by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), in collaboration with the
Ghana Ministry of Health, Ipas, the International Planned Parenthood
Federation’s Africa office, Marie Stopes International, the African
Women’s Development and Communication Network, and the African Network
for Medical Abortion.
At the end of the four-day conference, participants
affirmed their commitment to expanding abortion access in Africa and
called on governments of African nations to review laws that criminalize
abortions.
TORONTO, Ontario, November 24, 2010
(LifeSiteNews.com) - The production of a startling new document
has further delayed an already long overdue trial for Linda
Gibbons on a charge of disobeying a court order that has kept her
imprisoned for almost two years. At issue is a communiqué sent
from Gibbons’s former attorney Peter Jervis to the Ontario Crown
attorney’s office. It made it clear he was no longer acting on
her behalf when meetings were held in 2001 on the progress of a
temporary court injunction issued by a civil court in 1994 that
prohibited pro-life activity near certain Ontario abortion sites.
Gibbons could not have legally given her
assent to the results of those meetings without representation.
The document should have been produced for Gibbons’s current
defence team as part of mandated procedures for complete Crown
disclosures to defence counsels, but apparently was not. That
irked defence lawyer Daniel Santoro, who is pursuing an abuse of
process motion in the case and told presiding judge Mara Beth
Greene at a hearing on November 19 that the situation is “highly
problematic, to say the least.”
“I want an explanation for why this letter
was not produced to me,” Santoro added. “I have serious
questions and serious problems.” As has been the Crown’s
practice throughout the lengthy case, Crown attorney Mathew Asma
asserted “it’s going to take time to digest the material
presented today … today’s allegation will require some
investigation ... there is a large volume of material to review
… we will ensure prior information is accurate … we’ll now
make sure” everything is provided.
Asma also indicated Jervis may be
cross-examined on the contents of his communication and asked for
“another week or two” of time, during which Gibbons will
continue to languish in prison.
“It sounds like it’s now becoming fairly
complicated,” Greene said by way of understatement, while again
expressing chagrin at how slow the charge has been in coming to
trial. She indicated no further adjournments will be granted in
the case, noting once more that Gibbons has already spent far more
time in prison on the charge than she will be sentenced to anyway
and will surely be released no matter the results of the eventual
trial. She ordered the Crown to ensure all relevant materials are
presented and provided.
Once again, Gibbons was allowed to sit
unrestrained beside Santoro in the body of the courtroom during
the latest hearing. She smiled to a group of supporters watching
from the gallery as she was handcuffed and led back into custody
at its conclusion. One supporter who visited her in prison said
she remains in good spirits despite the troubling developments.
The current charge dates back to January 20,
2009, when Gibbons was arrested outside the “Scott Clinic”
abortion site in downtown Toronto for allegedly violating the
temporary court injunction. An earlier conviction for disobeying a
court order regarding a matter in October 2008 is being pursued to
the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that - as with all
criminal charges laid against Gibbons over 16 years - a civil
matter was improperly pursued in a criminal court. Word is being
awaited on whether the Supreme Court will hear the appeal.
All parties will return to the Ontario Court
of Justice at Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto on
December 1 at 10 a.m. for what is being called “an update” on
the situation related to the current charge.
Vote
on Canada’s abortion coercion bill bumped up to Dec. 15th
MP Rod Bruinooge is the sponsor of Roxanne's Law.
(Photo: Steve Jalsevac/LSN)
OTTAWA, Ontario, November 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- The vote on the Canadian bill seeking to criminalize abortion
coercion, which was initially pushed back to February, is now set for
December 15th.
The bill, called “Roxanne’s Law,” is named after Roxanne
Fernando, a Manitoba woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to
have an abortion after she became pregnant in 2007. After refusing
to have the unborn child killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a
snow bank.
It was introduced in April as a private members bill by Conservative
MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who serves as chair of the
parliamentary pro-life caucus. It is opposed by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, who says he “will oppose any attempt to create a new
abortion law.”
The bill, also known as C-510, received its first hour of debate on
November 1st. “No pregnant woman should ever have to choose
between protecting herself and protecting her baby,” Bruinooge told
the House of Commons.
It will receive a second hour of debate on December 13th.
The bill has gained wide support among religious and pro-life
organizations, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the
Canadian Bishops’ Catholic Organization for Life and Family, and
Priests for Life, among numerous others.
Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada’s pro-life
movement, has called on MPs to support the bill so that it can be
amended in committee. They expressed reservations, in particular,
about passages that could be interpreted to recognize abortion as an
acceptable option.
. . .If
passed, [the bill] . . . will go for discussion before a parliamentary committee.
Secret
Burial Held for Babies Recovered in Abortion Clinic Raid
November
19, 2010, Operation Rescue
Burial
missed an opportunity to provide a teaching moment to the public about the
horrific nature of abortion and the value of human life.
Elkton,
Maryland - Pretty much everything about their short lives was secret. On
Monday morning, November 15, 2010, the remains of 34 aborted babies were
secretly buried in an Elkton cemetery three months after police discovered
them in a storage freezer during a raid on the secret abortion clinic
where their lives secretly ended.
Blogger
Jill Stanek broke the story of the burial yesterday after speaking
with the only reporter to witness the service.
The bodies
were the result of late-term abortions illegally started by the notorious
abortionist Steven Brigham at his Voorhees, New Jersey abortion mill, and
completed at his under-the-radar Elkton, Maryland, clinic. Brigham is not
licensed to practice medicine in Maryland and has since had his New Jersey
medical license suspended. Two other abortionists involved in Brigham's
illegal late-term abortion scheme have also been suspended in Maryland. (Background)
According to
Stanek, her source at Elkton's newspaper, the Cecil
Whig, says that of the 35 babies recovered, 34 were buried on
Monday. One child's remains were claimed by a Canadian couple.
Most
interesting is news that eleven death certificates were issued for eleven
of the pre-born babies. Does this mean that eleven murder counts could be
pending?
Operation
Rescue spoke with a representative of the State's Attorney's office in
Elkton, who indicated that the case was still an open investigation under
the purview of the Elkton Police Department, who conducted the initial
raid and recovered the aborted baby remains. Operation Rescue continues to
monitor the case.
In the meantime, while it is commendable for the Immaculate Conception
Church to arrange for a decent burial for the tiny victims of abortion, it
is more than sad that the service was held in secrecy . . .
.
[Read
the whole article online.]
LONDON, November 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Britain’s abortion rate could be lowered with the adoption of laws
requiring women to be given full information as to the effects of
abortion, a British MP said earlier this month. Nadine Dorries, the MP for
Mid Bedfordshire, believes abortion should remain legal, but has
campaigned consistently for more restrictions.
Dorries said in a debate in the House of Commons on November 2 that in
Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, informed consent laws have made the
“abortion procedure a far kinder one” for women.
“All those countries with good informed consent legislation had
significantly lower than average daily abortion rates than the countries
that do not have such informed consent legislation. Although a causal link
is impossible to prove, these figures suggest that informed consent
legislation might prove a good way of reducing Britain's abortion
figures.”
Britain’s abortion rate, one of the highest in Europe, slowed
slightly last year, but still came close to 200,000, or approximately 572
per day.
“A woman has an assumed right to choose,” Dorries said. “However,
she apparently has no right whatever to any information on which to make
that choice.”
For any minor surgery, she continued, doctors are required to explain
it to patients in detail. They are required to discuss possible pain, the
dangers of general anaesthetic and post-operative progress is checked in
follow-up appointments. “A woman who has an abortion has none of
that.”
“Before the woman received the procedure, she might have felt
coerced, pressurized or bullied into the abortion. To her, it might have
been a life or the beginning of a life - depending on her perspective. She
might have had a seed of doubt, but once she was on the conveyor belt to
the clinic, she might have felt helpless and unable to step off.”
“Abortion in this country is an industry from which a small number of
organisations and individuals make vast amounts of money. No sensible
person would condone this.”
Anne Milton, a minister with the Department of Health, responded for
the Government, saying that reducing the abortion rate is “an absolute
priority” for the coalition government and that “advances” had been
made to ensure women have “safe, legal abortions.”
Milton said that a White Paper report is scheduled to be issued later
this year which will set out the Government’s position in more detail,
and promised that the results of a review of the evidence surrounding
mental health consequences of abortion will be published next year.
In the same debate, Andrew Selous, MP for South West Bedfordshire,
pointed out that the cost of “counseling” for abortion is only covered
by the public health service if the abortion goes ahead. The woman pays
herself if she decides to allow her child to live.
Moreover, Dorries said, that only “minimal” counseling is available
from NHS hospitals and private abortion facilities, and that in those
places, there is a natural “conflict of interest.” If a woman is not
interested in aborting her child, “no alternative counseling is provided
to negate that option.”
Dorries decried the laxity of the existing restrictions that require
the consent of two physicians. “Abortion clinics freely admit that
consent forms pile up in their offices, waiting for the second signature,
long after the event has taken place.”
But Andrew Stephenson, head of the pro-life group Abort 67, told
LifeSiteNews.com that if he had Dorries in front of him, he would ask her,
“Why do you want to restrict abortion? If abortion isn’t killing a
small human being, then why have any restriction on it?”
Stephenson, with colleague Catherine Sloane, recently made headlines
when they were arrested for showing large graphic images of abortion
outside the Marie Stopes private abortion facility in Brighton as part of
the Genocide Awareness Project movement.
He said, “You’ve got to ask yourself why. If there’s nothing
wrong with abortion, then you can support it without any restriction. So
why does Dorries want greater restrictions but not to outlaw it? But if
it’s true that abortion kills an innocent human being, how can she
support it?”
Stephenson and Sloane speak to women at Britain’s abortion
facilities, and say that their experiences show that “girls don’t know
the facts about abortion.”
“That’s perfectly true. Women have told us that they’ve been told
by doctors that their baby was just a ‘mass of tissue’ like a kidney
bean. So clearly something needs to be done, these women need more
information.”
But there is a question of bias and motive, he said. “Whether I trust
those people who would kill these women’s babies to give them genuinely
accurate information is another question.”
“You’ve got to ask whether someone who is willing to kill a baby
would give the sort of information required to help a woman make an
informed decision.”
The work of Abort 67, which includes a website featuring graphic images
and videos of abortions and aborted children, is to inform women of the
grisly reality of what abortion really does to a child.
The women going into abortion facilities, Stephenson said, are often
“in no fit state” to make such decisions. “They‘re often being
dragged by their friends or families or boyfriends or husbands, and are
not capable of understanding what is happening.”
Instead, Stephenson said, “Society as a whole needs a fuller
information on this. We need to reach those who are pressuring girls to
abort before the situation arises.”
The group aims to do something “much more broad” than giving
information to “a girl sitting in a doctor’s surgery hearing a few
stats and facts.”
“We do know that when girls see the reality of abortion up front,
they change their minds. I would agree that in our experience that’s
been the case many times.” This shows the need for a nation wide
information campaign. “We need to see girls in schools being properly
informed about what abortion is, before they get to the stage when
they’re having to make this decision.
“If we’re serious about reducing abortion numbers, we need to be
educating men and women from an early age about the truth of abortion.
Only when the truth is known everywhere will we decrease those numbers.”
“We’ve seen it on a small scale and we know it would work on the
larger scale.”
First Debate on Canada’s
"Roxanne's Law" (Bill Against Coercive Abortion) Set for Monday
[title changed from LifeSite's]
October 27, 2010
By Patrick B. Craine
OTTAWA, Ontario, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– “Roxanne’s Law,” the Canadian private members bill that seeks to
criminalize the coercion of pregnant women into obtaining abortions, is
slated for its first hour of debate this Monday, November 1st.
The bill, proposed by Conservative Member of Parliament Rod Bruinooge
(Winnipeg South), is inspired by the case of Roxanne Fernando, a Manitoba
woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to have an abortion after
she became pregnant in 2007. After refusing to have the unborn child
killed, Roxanne was beaten and left to die in a snow bank.
“Roxanne Fernando is someone I view as a real hero in this
country,” Bruinooge, who serves as chair of the parliamentary pro-life
caucus, told LifeSiteNews on Tuesday. “Choosing to not end her
pregnancy is the very thing that led to her untimely death, and as she was
dying in the snow bank, I’m sure she cried out and there was no one
there to hear her.”
“Next week in the House of Commons, her voice will be heard,” he
added.
Bruinooge introduced
the legislation, also known as Bill C-510, in April and it was declared
votable on October 19th. It immediately gained wide support last
spring among religious and pro-life organizations, including the Evangelical
Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Bishops’ Catholic Organization
for Life and Family, and Priests for Life, among numerous others.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, denounced
Bruinooge’s effort as an attempt to reopen the debate on abortion.
“I generally don't comment on private member's legislation," he
said in May. "But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt
to create a new abortion law."
A senior government official at the time told the National Post that
Harper will vote against the bill and it will be “very strongly
recommended” that Conservative MPs do likewise.
Proponents of abortion have charged
that the bill is unnecessary because acts such as harassment or
intimidation are already covered under the Criminal Code. But
Bruinooge pointed out that not a single case involving coercive abortion
has been prosecuted in Canada, even though it is clear that such
situations occur.
Just last week in Texas, a 16-year-old pregnant girl obtained
a restraining order against her parents, who were trying to force her into
aborting her child. The girl’s mother had dragged her to local
abortion facilities but the daughter refused.
Bruinooge said his bill will “clarify the law.” “I believe
it would have made a difference to Roxanne and I think it empowers all
women,” he said.
He expects that the bill will get its second hour of debate in early
December, which will be followed by a vote.
October 25th, 2010 (40DaysforLife.com)
- How many more lives will be saved this fall?
This is the last week of the campaign and a wild week for me — I go
to Southern California before closing this fall’s campaign at the site
of one of the largest abortion facilities in the world — the Planned
Parenthood in Houston, Texas.
The number of babies God has saved in response to your prayers during
this 40 Days for Life campaign is now 445 — that we know of. Please keep
praying and fasting!
Here are some of the great stories I’ve received from local 40 Days
for Life volunteers.
CLEVELAND, OHIO
Tom
says the weather was nasty in Cleveland, which made the scene at the
abortion center even more depressing than usual. But he and a number of
other vigil volunteers prayed silently that God would hear their pleas —
it was a Tuesday, an abortion day, and there were many women arriving for
appointments.
Near the end of the prayer shift, one of the volunteers offered
literature to a woman who was leaving the abortion center. “The woman
told us that she had an appointment to abort her baby,” Tom said, “but
had changed her mind.”
When asked what made her change her mind, she answered, “God did.”
“We told her that we would be offering prayers of thanksgiving for
her courage and of support for her as she carries her baby to term,” Tom
said.
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
When Theresa arrived at the 40 Days for Life vigil, the parking lot at
Planned Parenthood was full.
“We saw several women leave after their abortion,” she said, “and
one in particular really struck a chord within me. A young girl being
escorted by her parents was holding her abdomen and crying. I immediately
felt overwhelmed and began crying for her and her aborted baby as I prayed
for God’s mercy.”
Shortly afterward, another car pulled in. But no one got out. Theresa
and the others at the vigil just kept praying.
After about 10 minutes, the car began to leave. The woman in the car
smiled, waved to the volunteers, and said, “I’m keeping my baby!”
“We all thanked the Lord for saving this innocent life,” Theresa
said. “I gave Him a special thank you for giving us the gift knowing we
made a difference.”
MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA
Sue watched as a young woman got out of a taxi at the abortion center
in Melbourne where the 40 Days for Life vigil is in progress.
Dave, one of the volunteers, glanced her way and said, “The group of
people over there are praying for your unborn child. What do you need? We
are here to help you and your child.”
She looked nervous. Dave asked her, “Why isn’t the father of the
baby with you?”
“I have not told my husband. I didn’t want to be pregnant,” she
said. After a short chat, the woman said she wasn’t really sure she
wanted the abortion. “What shall I do now?”
She asked the right person. “Go home and tell your husband, your
daughter and your parents about the new member of their family,” Dave
said.
“I will ring the same taxi driver,” the woman said. “He gave me
his number. I hope he can take me back.” The taxi was there within ten
minutes.
Dave spoke to the taxi driver and asked him to take good care of her.
With a smile and a thank you, they drove off.
“Please pray for this young woman and her family,” Sue said. “One
more to add to the 3,000 plus who have been saved thanks to 40 Days for
Life!”
Few Canadians know
rules on abortion, poll finds
By Katherine Laidlaw, National PostAugust
4, 2010
Two-thirds of Canadians do not know that Canada has no abortion law,
according to a new poll that indicates Canadians are woefully
misinformed about a landmark ruling in the country’s history.
The poll, which asked 1,022 Canadian adults about their understanding
of the country’s abortion regulations, found that just 22% of
Canadians correctly identified a woman’s right to an abortion with no
governmental restrictions. Canada has not had legislated abortion rules
since 1988, making the country an “absolute outlier” on the issue,
according to a medical ethicist.
“There’s really only a very small number of Canadians that
correctly identify the current situation in Canada,” says pollster
Jaideep Mukerji, who worked on the Angus-Reid poll, which was released
on Tuesday. “That could be problematic.”
“Once you explain to them what the actual law is, there’s only
27% of Canadians that say that the status quo [of no law] should be
maintained. There’s a majority of Canadians that would like to make
some change to that status quo,” Mr. Mukerji said. . . . .
Case illustrates
legal, ethical minefield of surrogate births
By Tom Blackwell, Postmedia NewsOctober
7, 2010 (Ottawa Citizen)
When a British Columbia couple discovered the fetus their surrogate
mother was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they
wanted an abortion. The surrogate, however, was determined to take the
pregnancy to term, sparking a disagreement that has raised thorny
questions about the increasingly common arrangements.
Under the agreement the three signed, the surrogate's choice would
mean absolving the couple of any responsibility for raising the child,
the treating doctor told a recent fertility medicine conference.
Dr. Ken Seethram, revealing the unusual situation for the first time,
said it raises questions about whether government oversight of contracts
between mothers and "commissioning" parents is needed.
A bioethicist who has studied the issue extensively argues that
contract law should not apply to the transaction, unless human life is
to be treated like widgets in a factory.
"Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children?
No, because children get hurt," said Juliet Guichon of the
University of Calgary. "It's kind of like stopping the production
line: 'Oh, oh, there's a flaw.' It makes sense in a production scenario,
but in reproduction it's a lot more problematic."
Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy
contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the
biological parents to support the child.
It appears no surrogacy contract has actually been contested in a
Canadian court, however, leaving the transactions in some legal limbo.
Seethram's presentation to the Canadian Society of Fertility and
Andrology conference suggested the accord signed by the three in B.C.
may have undermined the surrogate's right to make decisions in a
"non-coercive" environment.
The surrogate, a mother of two children of her own, eventually chose
to have the abortion, partly because of her own family obligations. . .
.
U.S.
Pro-Life Student Group Defends Arrested Canadian Pro-Life 'Heroes'
By Kathleen Gilbert
ARLINGTON, Virginia, October 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- An American organization of pro-life students has expressed solidarity
with a group of Canadian students arrested Monday morning
for setting up a
display against abortion on the campus of Carleton University in Ottawa.
Ruth Lobo, James Shaw, Nicholas MacLeod, and Craig Stewart were joined
by Zuza Kurzawa from Queen’s University in Ontario. All five were taken
into custody by police for setting up a Genocide Awareness Project display
on the Tory Quad.
The school had forbidden the group from displaying the images in the
public area, allowing them to use only an out-of-the-way location, despite
warnings from the students' lawyer that they were infringing on the
group's freedom of speech. The students were handcuffed, charged with
trespassing, fined, and released later that day. (see coverage here)
Kristan Hawkins, head of Students for Life of America, told
LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday that "pro-life students across the world
stand in solidarity with" the arrestees.
“Yesterday, the Canadian government showed once again that it does
not respect freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the sanctity of
human life," stated Hawkins. "Pro-life students should have the
right to speak out on their own campus, particularly when that campus is
publicly funded."
Hawkins praised the four pro-life students arrested at Carleton, saying
they "showed exemplary faith and courage in the face of
discrimination."
"By silencing these students, Carleton University actually helped
advance the pro-life message," she said. "The controversy
surrounding this incident will help educate thousands of Canadian
students."
Contact information:
Dr. Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President and Vice-Chancellor
503 Tory Building
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Tel: 613 520-3801
Fax: 613 520-4474
Email: presidents_office@carleton.ca
Gibbons Trial,
Pickets Outside, Packed Courtroom
TORONTO, August 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons appeared before Madam Justice Mara Beth
Greene today, but no ruling was issued as was expected. The College
Park courtroom was packed with pro-life supporters, with many more outside
staging a Show the Truth demonstration witnessing with large signs the
reality of abortion.
Numerous police officers attended the court proceedings.
According to one eye-witness, "One female police officer took great
pains to restrict Linda's view of the participants." Gibbons was
reserved, silent, and particularly attentive throughout the hearing.
Charles Lewis, National Post reporter who last week wrote a
front-page extensive news report published in the paper regarding
Linda's saga, sat in the front row and was there for the entire day.
Also in attendance was Mary Wagner, a young woman who has followed in
Gibbons footsteps and was herself only released
from jail for pro-life witness last month.
Judge Greene was described as "lively and inquisitive"
throughout, finding once that the Crown had put forward contradictory
arguments.
Gibbons has been imprisoned continuously since Jan. 20, 2009, when she
was arrested outside the downtown "Scott Clinic," which is
protected by a 1994 court injunction banning pro-life activity within a
specified zone.
Daniel Santoro, lawyer for Gibbons argued that the "temporary
injunction" was "abusive" to Linda Gibbons.
The case was remanded until the first week in September, which means at
least four more weeks of incarceration for the great-grandmother.
Linda very much welcomes mail and is allowed two prison visits a week
(max. 2 persons per visit)
Visitors must call the prison at least 48 hours in advance and show up
at least 15 minutes before the visit. Call 905-876-8300
Mail can be sent to the following address:
Vanier Centre for Women
665 Martin St.
Milton Ontario
L9T 5E6
There are some mailing guidelines because the Detention Centre mailing
department reads everything sent to the inmates:
1. Don't use stickers (address, return address, pro-life) on the
envelope or card.
2. Don't send any laminated cards, bookmarks, prayer cards, pro-life
pamphlets. Non-laminated items will get to her.
3. Don't ask direct questions about daily activity of the detention
centre.
4. Put your address directly in the card or letter. (Sometimes the mail
sorter keeps the envelope and Linda feels badly if she can't write back.)
5. If you would like to send a little monetary gift to Linda it must be a
money order made out to “Linda Gibbons.” The detention centre will
deposit the money directly to her account. She uses any donations for
envelopes and stamps.
6. Many people add a variety of Christian reading material in their
mailings to her. She often shares articles with others in the Centre. She
can receive pro-life material that show the development of the baby but
not post abortion photos. She can't receive books. Try to stick to one or
two pages of reading materials or pamphlets.
The
Truth Comes Out - Canadians Want Restrictions on Abortion
[a release
from the Association for Reformed Political Action, Canada]
(www.ARPACanada.ca, August
4, 2010): A newly-released Angus
Reid public opinion poll reveals some startling findings on abortion
that blow apart the myth that the abortion debate is settled in Canada. In
its ten
page news release, Angus Reid highlighted that only 21% of
Canadians know that there are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada.
Even more astounding, when the respondents were told about the reality of
the lack of abortion laws and then asked which option they would prefer to
regulate abortion, only 27% wanted the status-quo to be maintained.
Less than half of the respondents (44%) think that abortions should be
publicly funded and a majority think that women under the age of 18 should
have to get consent from their parents or legal guardian to get an
abortion. To add to all of this, a whopping 79% "would
support provincial legislation demanding that health care workers give
information about alternatives to abortion to pregnant women."
"These findings are huge", stated ARPA Canada's Director Mark
Penninga. "They send a loud a clear signal to our policy makers that
Canada's lack of laws on abortion are out of step with public opinion. How
strong do the numbers have to be before our leaders decide to deal with
this issue in a principled and honest manner?"
For over twenty years Canada has not had any laws regulating abortion,
setting us apart from all other nations in the Western world.
"Our leaders need encouragement" said Penninga. "They
need to hear from you that you are looking to them to show leadership on
this issue. They can no longer use the argument that society first has to
change before they reflect these changes in law. And when they do show a
willingness to address the issue, they need support," Penninga added,
referring to the current Private Members Bill titled Roxanne's Law that
was introduced by MP Rod Bruinooge to make it a crime to coerce a woman to
have an abortion. "Things will change if we each have the courage to
stand up for the unborn, and get behind leaders who bravely do the
same."
--30--
For suggestions for action to support Roxanne's Law, click
here.
For the latest new, articles, and videos from ARPA Canada, click
here.
The Association for Reformed Political Action strives to educate,
equip, and encourage members of Canada's Reformed church community to
political action. Learn
more here.
Woman Jailed for Abortion
Counseling in Toronto Acquitted, Set Free
By John Jalsevac
July 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Mary Wagner, the young woman who was jailed earlier this year for
entering an abortion clinic and counseling women and abortion workers, has
been acquitted of all charges and freed from jail.
Mary
Wagner’s mother, Jane Wagner, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she
received a call from Mary this morning saying that she had been acquitted,
but was unable to provide specific details about the judge’s decision.
Attempts to contact Mary have been unsuccessful.
At a hearing earlier this month, the presiding judge in the case had
said that Mary could be let out of jail immediately if she agreed to three
conditions, one of which was not to stand on the sidewalk in front of
the Choice in Health abortion facility, or to enter the building. The
young pro-life activist, however, said that she could not agree to this
condition, and so was returned to jail pending a further hearing.
While that hearing was originally not set to happen until September,
Jane Wagner told LSN that earlier this week Mary’s lawyers told her that
the judge had had a “change of heart,” and would hear her case today.
Mary’s path to becoming a prisoner of conscience began on Monday,
March 29, during Holy Week, when she entered the "Woman's Care"
abortion facility. At that time she said she was able to "speak to a
few grieving Dads, whose partners had already gone in for their abortions,
and let them know about project Rachael, a support system for post
abortion parents."
After about 45 minutes the police arrived and escorted her away from
the facility.
On Tuesday, March 30, Mary again went to witness to life, this time to
the "Choice in Health" abortion center, where she said she
was able to counsel women, abortion workers, and the police for nearly 45
minutes before she was carried away by officers and put in jail.
UVic
anti-abortion group gets funding back
Postmedia
News July 20, 2010
The
University of Victoria has restored its funding to an anti-abortion group
after members filed a lawsuit.
Youth
Protecting Youth sued the University of Victoria Students' Society this
spring after being cut off from club funding since the fall of 2008.
During
the summer, the students' society board of directors passed a motion to
reinstate Youth Protecting Youth's funding retroactively to 2008, a total
of $719. . . .
Pro-life Bishop
Assassinated and Pro-life Offices
Bombed in Apparent Attempt to Promote Baby-Killing laws in Kenya
[Note the
apparent thinly-veiled threat of U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden to withhold
funding if abortion is not allowd.]
Kenya's future
Human Life International E-Mail
July 8, 2010
A battle is raging in Kenya over the
inclusion of abortion in the new draft of the constitution, which will be
voted on August 4, 2010. If the draft is ratified, abortion will be
allowed by a loophole in the new constitution's wording.
In March, the
Anglican Church of Kenya Archbishop Eliud Wabukala said "We all have
said that God values life and life begins at conception. That is a
principle and we all seem to have agreed on that aspect." Canon Peter
Karanja of the National Council of Churches told Inter Press Service,
"Life is sacrosanct. The definition of life must be stipulated in the
supreme law of the land, the Constitution."
The Christian Churches of Kenya are
standing firm and they are under attack because of their position against
making abortion a constitutional right. On June 3, two bombs exploded at a
"vote no" rally, killing five and injuring at least
seventy-five. Just last Saturday, July 3, Bishop Joseph Segal of The
Redeemed Gospel Church, a strong advocate for life and leader in the
"vote no" campaign was brutally assassinated in his church.
Kenya has a large Christian majority that
is 69% pro-life according to a recent poll. Kenya also has a fertility
rate of 4.56 children per woman. The high fertility rate has made Kenya a
primary target nation for international population control groups and
abortion lobbyists. On March 3, the Center for Reproductive Rights, based
in New York, issued a video claiming that keeping abortion illegal
threatens the lives of Kenyan women. "Every year, tens of thousands
of women in Kenya die or suffer from complications from an unsafe
abortion,"(a statistic that is unsupported) and recently Dr. Nehemiah
Kimathi of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) urged
Members of Kenya's Parliament to drop what little pro-life language
remains in the draft.
Earlier this year, Congressman Jeff
Fortenberry of Nebraska, urged Kenyan lawmakers to retain the protections
for the unborn in the constitution. He said, "It is appalling that
leaders in Africa are being systematically pressured to slacken their
abortion laws in the belief that such a policy prescription leads to
'economic progress.' It is also scandalous that abortion is misleadingly
being attributed as 'reproductive health care.'"
Contrast that to a June 9th
speech at the Kenyatta International Conference Center in Nairobi, Kenya
at which Vice-President Biden reaffirmed President Barack Obama's support
for Kenya's process and said "We are hopeful, Barack Obama is
hopeful, I am hopeful that you will carry out these reforms to allow money
to flow," Biden further said, "As you prepare to write a new
history for your nation, resist those who try and divide you based on
ethnicity, or religion, or region and above all, fear." Biden was
fully aware that the Catholic Church and Protestant churches are opposing
the constitution because of the pro-abortion provision. . . . .
Harper
Credited for Keeping Abortion Out of G8 Maternal Health Plan
By Patrick B. Craine
HUNTSVILLE, Ontario, July 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- At the G8 meetings in Muskoka on June 25-26, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper seems to have held true to his commitment to not fund abortion as
part of his "signature initiative" on maternal and child health,
but at the same time he endorsed a plan that includes funds for
"family planning."
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, the G8 countries announced June
26 that they would be launching the Muskoka Initiative to
"accelerate progress" towards improving maternal health and
reducing child mortality (MDGs 5 and 4).
The plan aims to enable "key interventions along the continuum of
care," from pre-pregnancy to early childhood. It includes, in
particular, the provision of "sexual and reproductive health care and
services, including voluntary family planning."
The outcome document includes no explicit reference to abortion, but does
say that the countries have agreed to "commit to promote integration
of HIV and sexual and reproductive health, rights and services within the
broader context of strengthening health systems," language which in
the past has included abortion.
However, with the explicit exclusion of abortion in the proposal
despite all the pressure to include it, it is hoped that abortion will not
be funded under the plan. Pro-life activists at the United Nations
have credited the Harper government with keeping abortion out of the final
document.
Prime Minister Harper first announced plans
for the new Muskoka Initiative in January, when he stated that "far
too many lives and unexplored futures have already been lost for want of
relatively simple health-care solutions," naming clean water,
vaccinations, proper nutrition, and trained birth attendants.
He immediately faced intense
pressure from the opposition parties, particularly Liberal leader
Michael Ignatieff, on whether he would fund abortion as part of Canada's
contribution. The government initially
said that they would not include "family planning," let
alone abortion. While they backed
down on contraception, they have continued to hold firm on their
decision to not fund Third World abortion.
Leading up to the summit, pro-abortion activists and media in Canada
sought to paint the government's stand as though it would bring
international embarrassment and put the country at odds with the rest of
the G8. But from all accounts, abortion was not an issue at the
meetings whatsoever, and, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
comments notwithstanding, it was far from clear whether the other
countries would even disagree with Canada's approach.
The Globe and Mail reported that of all the news articles coming out of
the meeting, only one reported on the position of foreign countries
regarding the abortion issue.
"The various G8 countries did not seem to be obsessed with maternal
health, in general, and with the question of abortion, in
particular," wrote Helene Buzzetti of Le Devoir. "For
example, when asked, the Japanese delegates could not say whether they
would agree to have their moneys used to finance abortion abroad."
Maria Dalgarno, Campaign Life Coalition's representative at the G8 summit,
reported that the Africans she spoke to insisted that women from their
continent "do not believe in aborting their children."
She was told by a man named Fernand, for example, who is originally
from the Ivory Coast, but now works in Quebec as president of an
international development group, that abortion and contraceptive methods
are foreign to the African mindset. "More prayer is needed.
Much prayer is needed," he said.
Harper announced at the end of the G8 summit that his government is
committing $2.85 billion to the initiative over the next five years, which
includes $1.1 billion in new funds. Total pledges from the G8
amounted to $5 billion, with $1.3 billion coming from the US in the next
two years. Additionally, $2.3 billion have been provided so far by
non-G8 countries and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Sharp Rise in Repeat Abortions in
England and Wales: Values-Free Sex Ed Blamed
By Hilary White, June 14, 2010
LONDON, June 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– New figures showing a rise in the number of multiple abortions among
younger women have prompted criticisms of government sex education
policies.
A Christian doctor’s group called the statistics “profoundly
depressing,” and blamed the government’s longstanding
“values-free” sex education.
“It is increasingly clear,” said Dr. Peter Saunders, of the
Christian Medical Fellowship, “that abortion is simply being used as a
form of contraception by a growing percentage of girls and women, and that
tired policies of values-free sex education, condoms and morning-after
pills are not working.”
George Pitcher, a liberal Anglican minister and religion editor for the
Daily Telegraph, commented that the current approach to dealing with
unwanted pregnancies, especially among the young, is failing to take the
problem seriously.
“You don't have to be over-cynical to feel that making the likes of
Marie Stopes the principal public voice in abortion policy is like
appointing a fox as gamekeeper. There needs to be a higher moral
imperative than that,” Pitcher wrote.
“Many will continue to look for it from the Catholic Church (and I
don't confine that to Roman Catholicism). Finger-wagging from scripture is
unlikely to gain a tenacious grip on the young imagination, but there is,
none the less, room for teaching on what used to be called sinful, and
these days may more readily be understood as human actions having
consequences.”
According to Department of Health statistics released
late last month, 89 girls aged 17 or under who had an abortion in 2009 had
had at least two previous abortions. The figures also showed that for the
first time, more than a third (34%) of abortions were repeat abortions.
More than 1,000 women or girls have had at least 5 abortions, with 214
having 6, 70 having 7, and 48 having 8 or more.
Overall, the number of abortions committed in England and Wales fell
from 195,296 in 2008 to 189,100 last year, a slight drop of about 3.2%.
While some have highlighted this fall in numbers, it is only the second
year in which abortion rates have dropped since 2001. The figures also
show that the number of older women having children has increased
significantly, while fewer younger women are giving birth.
In recent years, Britain’s abortion rate, which has climbed steadily
since legalization in 1967, has alarmed even some pro-abortion MPs and has
earned the country the nickname “abortion capital of Europe.”
Tuesday
June 15, 2010
GOP House Leader Asks Obama:
‘What Happened to that Abortion Executive Order?’
By John Jalsevac
June 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– In a meeting with President Obama last week, House Republican Leader
John Boehner asked for an update about the implementation of the
president’s Executive Order (EO), which purports to block abortion
funding in the federal health care bill.
The EO was offered by Obama during 11th hour negotiations prior to the
final vote on ObamaCare. It proved to be the carrot that convinced
Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak and his cadre of pro-life Democrats to cast
their crucial votes in favor of the controversial legislation.
But as Boehner staffer Kevin Boland explained on Boehner’s official
blog last week: “Abortion opponents widely viewed the EO as a
disingenuous maneuver made by the Administration in the final hours of the
health care fight to buy off ‘pro-life’ Democrats instead of passing
the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, which would have prevented federal
subsidies for abortion under ObamaCare.”
In fact, the EO was almost universally condemned as woefully inadequate
by pro-life groups. These sentiments were confirmed when Planned
Parenthood President Cecile Richards issued a statement celebrating the
passage of the health care bill and illustrating the abortion-related
executive order as a merely "symbolic gesture."
Now there are concerns that whatever meaningful provisions the order
does contain may not be implemented in a timely fashion, or at all.
In his meeting with Obama Boehner pointed out that in a recent
“progress report” about the implementation of the health care bill,
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius made no mention
of the order.
According to Michael Steel, spokesman for Boehner's office, "The
president indicated that he would provide some kind of an update on the
implementation of the executive order."
According to Citizenlink, Steel added that "There is no indication
that they are moving in any way to implement the executive order in an
effective way or a meaningful way."
“What I fear is that the effect is as we suspected at the time, that
there is no effect at all of this executive order."
Boehner had asked once before for an update on the EO,
in a May 13 letter to Sebelius. In that letter Boehner asked: “Has the
Department provided guidance to states to implement the president’s
Executive Order on abortions? When does the Administration expect to
issue the directive on abortions? Will the new federal high-risk
pools touted by the Administration also ensure that abortions will not be
covered?”
Bohner pointed out to Sebelius that “Millions of Americans care
deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no
progress report is complete without detailed information about it.”
Thus far there has been no response to that letter.
[British
Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is non-partisan, but the matter
raised in the following letter from the Christian Heritage Party
transcends party issues.]
An
Open Letter to the Attorney General of Ontario from Gordon Truscott[Regarding
Linda Gibbons]
[from
the Christian Heritage Party, Communiqué
Vol 17, No 20 May 18, 2010]
In 2000, I self-published a book entitled, Alone:
a grandmother's struggle for life, about the childhood, passion
and dedication of Linda Gibbons who for many years has valiantly, yet
peacefully, opposed abortion. Today, Linda is in jail in Ontario again
for her peaceful protest.
Linda speaks from experience. Her second
pregnancy was terminated with an abortion. Today, she has three adult
children, several grandchildren and now, a great grandson whom she has yet
to see as he was born during her present incarceration.
Linda Gibbons has saved over 100 human lives
from Canada's unborn baby slaughterhouse, many of these children of
course, totally unaware of their debt to her. She simply spoke one-on-one
with their mothers, explaining that if the mother would consent to give
birth that she would not have to bear the guilt that Linda does. She tells
women what their doctors have usually not told them -- about the
complications they might experience after their abortion -- but only to
those women willing to give Linda the time to speak. Linda's crime, for
which she is in prison, is telling the known and scientifically documented
emotional, mental and physical truth of abortion complications.
Canada has killed well over 3,000,000 of its
youngest, most vulnerable citizens in the womb. I have yet to meet any
woman who can honestly tell me that her abortion has had no adverse
physical, emotional or mental effect on her. Why does Canada traffic in
the ill health of women?
The cost of providing "free"
abortions is staggering. Much more than $50,000,000 of taxpayers' money
gets spent each year to procure the more than 100,000 abortions -- to say
nothing of the cost of destroying valuable human life and potential as if
it were simply unwanted tissue. And who can measure the cost to women
haunted by this 'unwanted tissue'? We have no way to measure the
heartache, the loss of function, the multitude of complications and the
emotional upset to women.
Successive governments, through either lack
of desire to stop abortion, or through capricious laws which protect the
economic interests of abortionists, have heaped untold damage upon
millions of women, while simultaneously restricting the outreach of those,
like Linda, who want to offer real help.
To offer hope to women outside an abortion
facility is a crime. There is no freedom of speech for anyone to
peacefully and respectfully ask women if they wish to speak with someone
before having an abortion. Why is this? Why can Canadians not speak freely
in the arbitrary zone around abortion facilities? Why has the protection
of the economic interests of abortionists been enshrined in law?
Linda's current case will be heard by a panel
of three judges on June 2nd and 3rd. It is her appeal against the
'temporary' injunction of 1994 prohibiting anyone from standing in an
arbitrary 60-foot zone around an abortion facility. This must be the
longest 'temporary' injunction on the books.
When I published my book in 2000, a police
officer stated that Linda had already spent more time in prison for her
peaceful witness than a person who uses a gun to hold up a variety store.
Linda, who has never so much as frowned at a woman contemplating an
abortion, let alone blocked her way, has now spent more than seven years
in maximum security prisons. In this most recent incarceration, if it ends
on June 3rd, Linda will have spent exactly 500 days in jail, due mostly to
false charges and abuses of the judicial process.
I call upon the Attorney General for
Ontario to investigate and end the heavy-handed treatment this caring
woman has received at the hands of the Ontario justice system for the
crime of loving Ontario women enough to give them the information that no
one else will.
Yours
truly,
Gordon
Truscott
The CHP invites you to write
a letter to the Attorney General for Ontario protesting the treatment of
Linda Gibbons at the hands of the Ontario legal system, and to support
Linda Gibbons with a letter. Click here for
their addresses.
How
motherhood stopped being a motherhood issue
Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post
Published: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Motherhood issues are not what they used to be. When
Stephen Harper selected maternal and infant health as Canada's
signature issue for next month's G8 and G20 meetings, he likely
thought it about as controversial as maple syrup. After all, who could
be against providing basic hygiene and health care to pregnant women
and their babies? For lack of basic medicines and primary health care,
women in many poor countries suffer needlessly, as do their infant
children. Maternal deaths in childbirth and reductions in infant
mortality are among the easiest developmental issues to tackle; a
relatively small investment yields significant reductions in lives
lost.
So how did such an apparent motherhood issue become
mixed up in abortion politics? After all, abortion does not figure to
make much of a contribution to maternal and infant health. Abortion is
never in the health interest of the infant, after all; and whatever
the position taken on abortion, it clearly is not a fruitful path to
motherhood. So to fund abortion as a part of a maternal and infant
health package is rather like funding smoking as part of a cancer
prevention initiative -- the two just don't go together.
Leave aside the politics of the matter, which, after
all, in Canada, are strange beyond parody. In the past few months,
both sides of the issue have accused their opponents of raising issues
that should not be discussed because they are "divisive."
The idea that political debate should avoid topics on which there are
disagreements is odd, especially when the parties are eager to
manufacture disagreement on all other matters, even where none exists.
What drives the hostility to the government's
motherhood issue? Motherhood. The heart of the opposition to the
initiative is its starting point -- expectant mothers. To a certain
cast of mind, considering women as mothers constitutes something of a
retrograde step. Hence the objection that helping mothers to have safe
deliveries is somehow illegitimate unless similar help is offered to
women to avoid becoming mothers at all. . . . .
The issue runs deep, for there exists a great
philosophical divide between those who think that advancement for
women requires the differences between men and women to be
minimized, or even ignored, and those who think that progress for
women means advancing women as women, rather than trying to make
them more like men. Hence an initiative that seeks to help women
become mothers safely and with healthy children quickly becomes
something much more than that. It takes one side in the great
philosophical debate. . . . .
Victoria
March for Life 2010 draws estimated thousands.
Organizers estimate
that at least 2500 people came out to take part in the 3rd annual
BC March for Life in Victoria on May 13, 2010.
Marchers of many ages and ethnic groups streamed down Government
Street to the Legislative Buildings on a brilliant afternoon,
attracting stares from pedestrians, cat calls from anti-life
onlookers, and thumbs-up from supporters. [More]
[adapted from a Kelowna Right to Life article]
With
the aid of a police escort, the pro lifers thronged Government Street,
which was closed to traffic for the thirty- minute walk from Centennial
Square. At the legislative building, a number of guest speakers, including
Kamloops Bishop Monroe, Jojo Ruba from the Centre for Bioethical Reform,
student activist Minerva Macapagal, Rachel Daniels, and Rev. Dr. Robert
Fitterer energized the largely youthful crowd. . . . .
Some
media personnel could also be seen, including a camera man from the A
Channel interviewing event organizer and head of the National Campus Life
Network Western division Renee Schmitz, and several photographers. Schmitz
was also interviewed on local radio station 1070 am shortly after the
march.
Click
here
for several photos of the March for Life 2010 in Victoria, B.C.
Pictures
of the 2010 March for Life and Rally
Taken for BC Parents and Teachers for Life
Photos by Mary Hewlett for BCPTL
Calgary
U Finds Pro-Life Students Guilty over Display
CALGARY, Alberta, May 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Eight members of
the University of Calgary's pro-life club, Campus Pro-Life (CPL), have
been found guilty after closed-door hearings late last month over their
presentation of a pro-life display on campus, says the group.
U of C's Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton told the
students that she was issuing “a formal written warning” that if the
students “fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the
future” it will “result in more severe sanctions.” Houghton
conducted the hearings, at which the students were denied legal
representation, and was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict.
“We are going to challenge this verdict,” stated Alanna Campbell,
CPL President. “We did not break a single University bylaw or regulation
and so we will defend ourselves accordingly. We will also not cease
exercising our rights to free speech just because they’re threatening
us. I’d rather be expelled as a principled person than graduate a
coward.”
Last month, after having set up the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project)
pro-life display on campus for the ninth time since 2006, members of the
group were notified that they were being charged with a ‘Major
Violation’ under Section 4.10 of the University of Calgary’s
Non-Academic Misconduct Policy. The cited reason was the students’
“failure to comply with a Campus Security officer or University official
in legitimate pursuit of his/her duties” when asked to turn their signs
inward or leave campus.
In Houghton’s decision, she explained the university’s demands:
“Signs that welcomed viewers and signs that identified your group as an
anti-abortion display could remain outward facing but signs with the
actual content of your display… must face away from walkways… or any
other areas in which persons on campus would have little choice but to
look at your display.”
“That’s blatant content-based discrimination,” responded Peter
Csillag, CPL Vice-President (Internal). “Why weren’t abortion
advocates, or Falun Gong supporters, forced to place their messages
inwards when they protested on campus? You can’t have debate if
everyone is pointed inwards on themselves. As far as I’m concerned, this
verdict against us pro-lifers is not legitimate, and it reveals U of C to
be an institute of censorship and double standards — not of higher
learning.”
In 2006 and 2007, during the first four displays of GAP on campus, the
university defended the students’ right to expression under the Charter,
but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.
“This recent hearing and result is just another step in a long
history of intimidation and censorship and if they think we’ll step down
as the result of it then they’re sorely mistaken,” stated Cameron
Wilson, CPL Vice-President (External).
The GAP display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such
as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. In 2009,
the University charged six students with trespassing in relation to the
display, but the Crown Prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial
scheduled for November of 2009. Since then, members of CPL have been
threatened with non-academic misconduct upon each display, but only now
has the University carried out its threats, beginning with this formal
warning.
“We’ve been informed that there are a lot of possible punishments
involved, ranging from warnings to expulsion,” stated Cristina Perri,
CPL Secretary. But, she said, “There’s nothing they can do to us
individually that compares to what hundreds of unborn children encounter
each day in our country.”
I am shocked and dismayed that at the University of
Calgary, setting up a pro-life display on campus can end
your academic career. Last week, the finding of eight
students guilty of a "major violation" of rules
governing "non-academic misconduct" -- a
category that also includes theft, vandalism, arson,
violence and sexual assault -- is nothing short of a bad
joke and an assault on freedom of speech. Would someone
associated with the U of C officially explain the
reasoning as to how and/or why censoring the peaceful
expression of opinion on campus is one of the duties of
campus security? The freedom to inquire, speak, publish,
debate and so forth is valuable as a means or condition
for the creation and authentic appropriation of knowledge,
for its preservation and for its transmission to others. .
. . .
Well
that's it, Canadians are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That's what
Ekos
is telling me from their poll released last Thursday. Ekos released
its poll on the issue in response to two different issues, the ongoing
maternal health debate on abortion as part of Canada's foreign aid program
and the competing poll for the Manning
Centre, which finds that Canadians view abortion morally wrong.
The implication that Canadians are pro-choice is that the general
population would agree with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
her call for Canada to include abortion as part of the program to save the
lives of mothers and children in the third world. Not necessarily. Another
poll by Harris-Decima shows Canadians are split on this issue with 46%
saying yes but 48% saying no.
Does this mean Canadians are more pro-life than pro-choice?
It is hard to make firm a judgement of where Canadians stand on this issue
because 1.) we don't normally have discussions about it in our national
politics or national media and 2.) from examining several polls, asking
different questions about abortion, it is safe to say Canadians have mixed
views.
The Manning Centre, a conservative group, asked the question is abortion
morally wrong and 74% said yes (60% strongly agree, 14% somewhat). What
Ekos asked is "Thinking about your general views on abortion, would
you say you are more pro-life or pro-choice?" The result, 52% said
pro-choice and 27% said pro-life. Neither of these polls negates the other
especially when you think of how many people would say, "Well, I find
abortion wrong but I would not want to impose my view on others."
Let's add another poll to the mix.
Environics Research has been conducting a poll for the last 7 years on
behalf of Life Canada. The questions have been fairly consistent and a
representative from Environics assures me, with quite a bit of
indignation, that they do not "throw the poll" in favour of the
client paying for it. In October 2009, the latest telephone survey of 2002
Canadians found that only
34% of Canadians agree with the status quo on abortions in Canada.
The exact question asked was "In your opinion, at what point in human
development should the law protect human life? Should it be ...? The
option of "From the point of birth" was selected by 34% while
30% said "From conception on." In the middle of the pack 17%
said, that the law should protect human life, "After three months of
pregnancy" and 8% chose "After six months of pregnancy" and
11% did not know or refused to answer. The poll also finds that, with the
exception of cases of rare cases, abortion should be paid for with private
tax dollars, not by the public health care system as it is now.
Like the Ekos survey comparing the pro-choice/pro-life answer over the
course of 10 years, the responses to Evironics surveys since 2002 have
been quite consistent.
So if we put all four polls together what we find is that Canadians likely
find abortion to be morally wrong, something they think should be
restricted at some point before birth, something that should receive
limited public financing, something that should remain legal and a true
hot button issue as to whether Canada should fund abortions overseas.
What we currently have in Canada or have had is a policy that is
completely different. Abortion is legal right up until the point that the
baby takes its own breath, independent of the mother, the best estimates
are that of the nearly 100,000 abortions in Canada each year, 5,000 or so
are in the last trimester. In all provinces but New Brunswick, abortion is
funded entirely by the public health system even when performed in private
clinics like the one that sits a block and a half from Parliament Hill.
Canadians, as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been reminding us
lately, have been funding abortions overseas for 25 years or more through
foreign aid grants.
Lorne
Gunter on Hedy Fry: Willing to debate anyone who agrees with her
on abortion
My friend and colleague, David Frum, once wrote that liberals all
claim to be in favour of lively debate and free speech, then are
constantly surprised when anyone takes these claims at face value.
So convinced are liberals of the wisdom of their own positions,
they cannot conceive how other intelligent people would disagree
with them, thus their belief that the major topics of the day are
all "settled."
They're in favour of free speech and vigorous debate because
they're sure they will never be challenged. Case in point: Vancouver
Centre Liberal MP Hedy Fry.
During last week's raucous
debate in the House of Commons over whether abortion funding
should be part of Ottawa's maternal
and child health plan for developing nations, Dr. Fry insisted
she would debate anyone, anywhere on the subject of abortion, but
then reassured the Commons such a debate would never
be necessary because when it comes to abortion policy in Canada, the
debate is settled, there's no need to reexamine it. She's got all
her index cards with talking points at the ready, but she isn't even
going to bother dusting them off. . .
. . .someone has already stepped forward to take up Dr. Fry's
anyone-anywhere debate offer -- Stephanie
Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Ironically, Ms. Gray is a former patient of Dr. Fry's, or at least
her mother was when she was pregnant with Stephanie. Don't hold
your breath about seeing these two duke it out soon, though.
Offers such as Dr. Fry's are seldom meant; they are made safe in
the knowledge they will never have to be followed through on.
Press
Release and Open Letter to Hedy Fry
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Former Patient takes
up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member
of Parliament to Debate Abortion Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament,
says she is ready to debate abortion with anyone
May 4, 2010. Calgary. In response to Dr.
Hedy Fry's claim that the abortion debate is unnecessary in Canada,
one of her former patients is publicly challenging her to discuss
the issue - a patient cared for by Dr.
"She obviously hasn't paid attention to
what's going on at universities recently," said Stephanie Gray,
executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform
(CCBR). Gray cited student groups across the country engaging in the
debate: "Pro-life students are being censored, banned and even
charged for trespassing on their own schools," said Gray.
"That doesn't sound like a dead debate
to me."
Gray said she herself, and members of her
staff, have faced great resistance from abortion advocates
attempting to shut their presentations down-and even successfully
doing so at some schools. But this doesn't discourage her.
"The fact that we're being invited to
speak at schools at all means that the debate isn't over. There's a
growing movement of young people who are saying that it is
undemocratic for Canadians of one generation to close the debate on
such an important topic for all Canadians."
Gray, whose own mother was a patient of Dr.
Fry when she was pregnant with her, says a new generation of
Canadians who weren't old enough to vote when abortion was debated
in the 1980's, are demanding that their voice be heard now.
"If Dr. Fry is truly prepared to debate
anyone on abortion then I would be glad to take her up on that
challenge," said Gray. "The fact that there are people of
my generation who are willing and able to talk about the great
injustice happening to the unborn means that the debate is not only
necessary but that it something Canadians want to hear."
Gray said she sent Fry's office an
invitation for her to participate in a public debate and will await
her response.
where it referenced you saying, "Fry
says she has all her arguments ready and is set to debate anyone on
the topic, but she feels it's unnecessary."
I
am also aware that in 2008 you were willing to do a debate on
abortion at the UBC medical school but the event never went ahead.
I am therefore asking if you'd be willing to
debate me in a public forum about abortion?
As a representative of the Canadian Centre
for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), I have been speaking and traveling
across the country on abortion for over
8 years, which includes many formal debates.In my experience the abortion debate is very alive.And yet, I was intrigued by the aforementioned CBC report
that, when reporting on your feeling that the debate is unnecessary,
said, "Because the question in Canada is settled; so there's no
need to re-examine it."
From
Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of Victoria,
pro-life students are reopening the abortion debate on university
campuses and are getting national attention for their work. The fact
that abortion advocates at those schools feel it is necessary to
ban, censor or even threaten with arrest, students for simply
protesting abortion or holding debates on abortion tells me that the
debate is far from finished.There
is a need to re-examine it.
As the former minister for the Status of
Women and a medical doctor, I know that you are well aware that in
Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion. Moreover, Canadian
taxpayers pay for those abortions. In other words, we are all
affected by this issue. This is why it is surprising that you would
feel the debate is unnecessary.
However, I am glad to know that you are also
more than ready to debate anyone on the abortion issue.
When my mom was pregnant with me, you were
her medical doctor.And
in that sense, and after my birth, you were my doctor too. You may
not have been aware then, but the pro-life values of my parents are
ones that I advocate now and I would be glad to take you up on your
offer of a debate.
I would be glad to participate in an
uncensored discussion over abortion with you.
For your convenience, perhaps you'd be
interested in debating at the University of British Columbia, where
I graduated from.
Please feel free to contact us so we can
work out the details.
Sincerely yours,
Stephanie Gray
Executive Director
-30-
--
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform
(CCBR) Box 123, 5-8720 Macleod Trail SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
Regional Marches for Life
Set to Go Across Canada - Complete List
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
May 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- More and larger Marches for Life are taking place in cities across
Canada this year to coincide with the annual National March for Life
in Ottawa on May 13.
Intended for those who want to make a pro-life statement but do
not have the time or resources to make the trek to Ottawa, these
regional marches take place in nearly every province and, like the
National March for Life, have seen an increase in participation
every year.
From west to east, the following cities are hosting a March for
Life this year:
VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA: the B.C. third
annual March for Life takes place on May 13. The day will start with
noon Mass at St. Andrew’s Cathedral. Then participants will make
their way to Centennial Square in downtown Victoria. At 2 p.m. they
will march to the B.C. Legislature down Government Street. After the
march, musicians will entertain participants until the speakers take
to the microphone.
“The March for Life is an opportunity for all who believe in
the sanctity of human life to stand together and publicly proclaim
it,” said Michele Smillie of the Archdiocese of Vancouver’s
Respect Life Office.
This year’s event is being co-sponsored by the B.C. and Yukon
Knights of Columbus, Burnaby Pro-Life Society, Campaign Life
Coalition B.C., Chilliwack Pro-Life Society, Nelson Pro-Life
Society, Elk Valley Pro Life, Surrey-Delta Pro Life, and Right to
Life, Rossland.
EDMONTON, ALBERTA: The third annual March for Life in
Edmonton is set for Thursday, May 13. Events begin with a prayer
vigil at St. Joseph Basilica (113 Street and Jasper Avenue) on May
12, beginning at 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. May 13, followed by a
pro-life Mass at 10:30 a.m. with Archbishop Richard Smith presiding.
A protestant prayer service will take place on May 13 at 10:00
a.m. at the Inglewood Christian Reform Church (12330 -113 Avenue),
with Pastor John Ooms presiding.
The rally will begin at 1:00 p.m. at the Legislative Grounds with
the March beginning at 1:30. The Knights of Columbus will lead the
March from the steps of the Legislature to Churchill Square and
return. Speakers will address participants at both the Legislature
and at Churchill Square.
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN: Regina's third annual March
for Life will take place on May 6 at the Saskatchewan Legislature.
The event will start with a Catholic Mass at 10:00 a.m. at Christ
the King Church, 3239 Garnet Street, and a prayer service at Grace
Lutheran Church, 1037 Victoria Ave., also at 10:00.a.m. Those
attending the prayer service are asked to be at Christ the King by
11:00 a.m. for the short walk to the Saskatchewan Legislature.
Events at the Legislature begin at 11:30 a.m.
Speakers will include Jerry and Donna Kristian, founders of St.
Therese Institute of Faith and Mission in Bruno, SK, Michael
Martorana, who will be speaking about his experiences with the
Genocide Awareness Project, and representatives from Sask. Chapter
of Silent No More Awareness Campaign.
Inspiring music and a high energy presentation geared towards
evangelization and healing will be presented by international award
winning singer/songwriter, Lorraine Hartsook.
The Board of Directors of Saskatchewan Pro-Life encourage
everyone to attend and let the entire province know that there are
many concerned citizens who want to promote the growth of
Saskatchewan by protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, our
unborn babies.
For more information please contact: Saskatchewan Pro-Life
Association Inc. at (306) 352-3480; Toll free: 1 888-842-7752; Fax:
(306) 352-3481 or E-mail: spla@sasktel.net
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN: The annual March for Life
Mother’s Day Walk in Saskatoon is set for May 9.
Information is available from Campaign Life Coalition
Saskatchewan president Denise Hounjet-Roth at (306) 249-2764, Fax
(306) 249-4180 or by email at dhounjet@shaw.ca
WINNIPEG, MANITOBA: Winnipeg’s March for Life is
scheduled for Thursday, May 13, starting at 6:00 p.m. at the
historical site, The Forks, and proceeding about a kilometer to the
grounds of the provincial legislature.
Special guest speaker will be Archbishop Albert LeGatt of St.
Boniface.
The Winnipeg March is organized by the Manitoba Knights of
Columbus with invaluable help from Campaign Life Coalition Manitoba,
the Catholic Women’s League, the League for Life in Manitoba and
the Winnipeg League for Life.
Organizers told LifeSiteNews that this year's March has been
promoted and advertised throughout the province, so they hope to see
well over 1000 participate.
For more information, contact the Knights of Columbus’s
pro-life chairman, Guy Precourt, at (204) 663-8022 or e-mail mbstkc@mts.net.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO: Ontario is home to the National
March for Life in the nation's capital of Ottawa on May 13. For more
information click here.
QUEBEC CITY, QUEBEC: Campaign Life Quebec is
organizing a conference in Quebec City with the theme, "A
Struggle for the soul of Quebec: two visions of marriage and
family" on May 15. (See article: Theme
for Campaign Life Quebec 2010 Annual Conference Revealed)
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK: The 10th annual March
for Life takes place at the NB Legislature on May 13.
The rally gets under way at 11:30 a.m. and will be followed by a
walk to the Mother and Child House, where a prayer vigil will take
place. A reception will then be held at the Msgr. Boyd Family
Center.
The March in Fredericton is co-sponsored by NB Right to Life, the
Catholic Women’s League (NB) and the Knights of Columbus (NB).
Last year more than 400 attended, as well as 18 MLAs.
Organizer Peter Ryan told LifeSiteNews that the rally is “not
so much a protest as a witness to God’s love for every child and
mother. Families and young people are strongly encouraged to
participate."
Ryan noted that Bishop Robert Harris attended the 2009 event in
Fredericton and is expected to be present once again.
Scheduled speakers include Baptist Pastor Bob Emrich, a pro-life
leader in Maine; Christian activist Heather Hughes, and pro-life
mother Cathy Jensen. Gyles and Marlilyn Baisley will sing a pro-life
song.
For further information call NB Right to Life at 1-888-796-9600.
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA: The March for Life will begin
at 12 noon on Thursday, May 13 at Province House, on Granville
Street in Halifax.
Ellen Chesal, Executive Director of Campaign Life Coalition Nova
Scotia, told LifeSiteNews that a candlelight prayer vigil will be
held in front of the Victoria General Hospital on South Park St. the
evening before the March (Wednesday, May 12th) at 8 p.m.
Guest speakers at the March will include Pam Churchill, director
of Tri-County Pregnancy Center in Yarmouth who has special training
in Post-Abortion Counselling, and Jennifer Derwey, a young mother of
two girls age 2 and 4, and a recent member of Feminists for Life of
America, Real Women of Canada and board member of Campaign Life
Coalition, NS.
ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND-LABRADOR: The St. John’s
March for Life takes place on Thursday, May 13, at 12:30 on
Confederation Hill, the seat of the provincial government. Spokesman
for Pro-Life Newfoundland, Patrick Hanlon, said participants should
gather in the east parking lot of the Confederation Building.
For more information, call: (709) 726-5012 or (709) 697-6701 or
e-mail: pjkh@nl.rogers.com.
REAL Women of Canada Alert Re G-8
Summit to be Held in Ontario June 25th & 26th, 2010
REALWomen of Canada
“Women Building a Better
Society”
NGO
in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations
May
4, 2010
A L E R T
G-8 Summit
Huntsville, Ontario
June 25-26, 2010
Maternal Health Care Proposal
REAL
Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to the
upcoming G-8 Summit which is to be held in Huntsville, Ontario on June
25th and June 26th, 2010.
Background
Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as President of the G-8 this year,
stated in January 2010, that maternal health care would be a priority
at the G-8 meeting. He has stated that maternal health would include
only positive assistance to women and children, which includes clean
water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of
health workers to care for women and deliver babies.
Canadian
feminists and population control groups, however, have now formed an
organization called “White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood”
headed by Maureen McTeer, wife of the former Progressive Conservative
Prime Minister, Joe Clark (1979-1980).They are lobbying the members of the G-8 countries to include
sexual and reproductive health and rights, i.e., abortion, in the
proposed maternal health care plan.
They
are currently circulating a 13-page “Call to Action: Maternal and
Child Health at the G-8 Summit”.This document is being distributed to development, human rights
and feminist organizations around the world in the hope that the
latter will pressure their respective governments to keep “sexual
and reproductive health and rights” in the Summit’s agenda, so as
to facilitate abortion, i.e., a population control policy in
developing countries.
Maternal Health and Abortion
The UN World Health Organization
(WHO), the World Bank, and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have
repeatedly asserted that access to abortion reduces maternal
mortality, which they claim has not decreased in decades.
However,
the leading British Medical Journal Lancet, in April 2010,
reported that maternal mortality has decreased an average of
35% globally since 1980 and that the UN agencies have significantly
overstated maternal mortality rates.
The
study in Lancet cites the increasing availability of basic medical
care, including “skilled birth attendants” – people with some
medical training to help women give birth, as one of the reasons for
the decline in maternal mortality.
To
include abortion in the G-8 proposal is to impose western values and
practices on developing nations, contrary to their culture and
religion.Such a policy
correctly can be described as elitist western imperialism in imposing
population control under the guise of maternal health.
The
G-8 countries are: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia,
United Kingdom, the United States, and, in addition, the European
Union.(It has a total of
nine participating members – but it’s still referred to as the
G-8.)
REAL
Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to
this upcoming G-8 Summit by forwarding this Alert to your family
members, friends, churches, service organizations.
It
would be appreciated if you and your contacts would write to the G-8
members, expressing concern, and requesting that abortion not
be included in the maternal health care proposal.
The
names, addresses, fax numbers and email addresses of the G-8 officials
are listed below. Unfortunately,
the list does not necessarily include all the faxes and email
addresses.Where no email
address is available, there is included the web mail address which
normally includes a “contact us” section with a pop up email form.
The
addresses are as follows:
France:
President
President
Nicolas Sarkozy
Elysee
Palace
55
rue du faubourg Saint-Honoré 75700
Paris France
A
national election is to be held in the UK on Thursday, May 6th.There is a strong possibility that the present Labour
government will be defeated.Consequently
the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister will change under a new
government.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Two BC hospitals have refused to divulge information about
abortions conducted at their facilities, following a freedom of
information request from a major pro-life group.
“If abortion statistics are going to be hidden in British
Columbia, they will be hidden everywhere,” said John Hof, head of
Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) BC, which requested abortion information
from Vancouver General Hospital and Kelowna General Hospital over a
year ago. “What better way to win an argument – 'Oh, how can
you prove that? There's no counting of those numbers'.”
CLC has fought for years to gain access to abortion statistics in
British Columbia, following the enactment of Bill 21 in 2001, which
amended the province's Freedom of Information Act to specifically
exclude access to information about abortion.
After the hospitals refused their request last year, citing Bill
21, Hof and his colleague Ted Gerk initiated applications for the
information through the BC Office of Information and Privacy.
They are using a 'public interest override' in the privacy
legislation, arguing that the release of the information is in the
public interest and should not be withheld.
They began the process a year ago and were preparing for hearings
in May and June, but this week, Hof said, they were “blindsided”
by last minute petitions from the hospitals to cancel the proceedings.
The hospitals appealed to section 56 of the Freedom of Information
Act, claiming that it is “plain and obvious that the records sought
by the Applicant will not be disclosed.”
“We believe it's an orchestrated effort to litigate us out of the
process,” said Hof.
Hof and Gerk had each made separate applications against the
hospitals, to Vancouver and Kelowna respectively. But Hof said
that “it's not a coincidence that within three minutes both of
these public bodies applied for an exemption."
Hof also said they are “absolutely astounded” that these
public bodies are using “such a steel-trap loophole to try and
prevent information that the public really needs to know from getting
out. They just don't want anyone to know.”
“What are they hiding? Why don't they want the information
out?” he asked. “Taxpayers are paying for these abortions.
Shouldn't we know how many there are? From an accounting
perspective, how do we know we're not being overcharged and that
people are billing for abortions that aren't being done? If the
type of obfuscation that is being applied on the abortion procedure
were applied to other medical procedures, it would be unacceptable.”
Prior to the passage of Bill 21, pro-life researchers were able to
expose the abortion bias of the BC government through Freedom of
Information requests. For example, they were able to learn
details about a special government committee called The Abortion
Services Working Group, which enabled cabinet ministers to meet with
abortion activists. They were also able to discover, while
investigating the death of a woman following an abortion at Vancouver
General Hospital, that 15 babies had survived abortion between 1995
and 1998, but then died later.
“The public needs to know that there is some accountability going
on in the government for the number of abortions that are being done
in BC,” said Hof. “Even Statistics Canada cannot report the
number of abortions being done in British Columbia because the numbers
are 'too unreliable to report'. Well, we want some reliability
put back in those numbers. Why should BC be the province that
has no abortion statistics?”
“If they can put the abortion statistics away from public
scrutiny, what's to prevent them from putting anything away from
public scrutiny?” Hof warned.
Hof's warning was backed up by an April 10th op-ed in the Vancouver
Sun, which described how the province's formerly revered freedom of
information process has fallen to shambles in recent years.
“Unfortunately, British Columbia’s once vaunted Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act has come to represent not a
triumph of transparency but a legacy of betrayed promises, corrupted
ideals, cynicism, sophistry and just plain rotten values on the part
of the people we elected to govern us,” wrote Stephen Hume.
Hume said that, “Every shred of information gathered, analysed,
held, traded or simply squatted upon by government belongs to the
people of British Columbia.”
LifeSiteNews did not hear back from Vancouver General Hospital or
Kelowna General Hospital by press time.
Contact Information:
Mr. Paul Fraser, QC
Office of Information and Privacy
Commissioner for British Columbia
PO Box 9038, Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, BC V8W 9A4
Phone: (250) 387-5629
E-mail: info@oipc.bc.ca
Two BC hospital, Vancouver
General and Kelowna General, have applied to stop a freedom of
information inquiry. These two public bodies have applied for a
Section 56 exemption to FOI rules.
After the hospitals
refused their request last year, citing Bill 21, John Hof and his
colleague Ted Gerk initiated applications for access to the
information through the BC Office of Information and Privacy
Commissioner. They are using a 'public interest override' clause in
the privacy legislation, arguing that the release of the information
is in the public interest and should not be withheld.
“If a hospital’s
abortion statistics are going to be hidden in British Columbia, they
will be hidden everywhere,” said John Hof who requested abortion
information from Kelowna General Hospital exactly one year ago.
He has fought for years to gain access to abortion statistics in
British Columbia, following the enactment of Bill 21 in 2001, which
amended the province's Freedom of Information Act to specifically
exclude access to information about abortion.
He and Gerk were preparing
for hearings, already scheduled in May and June, but this week, were
“blindsided” by last minute petitions from the hospitals to cancel
the proceedings. The hospitals appealed to section 56 of the
Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it was “plain and
obvious that the records sought by the Applicant will not be
disclosed.”
“We believe it's an
orchestrated effort to litigate us out of the process,” said Hof.
Gerk and Hof had each made
separate applications against the hospitals, to Vancouver and Kelowna
respectively. But Hof said that “it's not a coincidence
that within three minutes of each other both of these public bodies
applied for an exemption."
“What are they
hiding? Why don't they want the information out?” he asked.
“Taxpayers are paying for these abortions. Shouldn't we at
least know how many there are? From an accounting perspective,
how do we know we're not being overcharged and that people aren’t
billing for abortions which aren't being done? This would be
unacceptable for any other medical procedure.”
Prior to the passage of
Bill 21, pro-life researchers were able to expose the abortion bias of
the BC government through Freedom of Information requests. For
example, they were able to learn details about a special government
committee called The Abortion Services Working Group, which enabled
cabinet ministers to meet with abortion activists. They were
also able to discover, while investigating the death of a woman
following an abortion at Vancouver General Hospital that 15 babies had
survived abortion between 1995 and 1998, but then died later.
“The public needs to
know that there is some accountability going on in the government for
the number of abortions that are being done in BC,” said Hof.
“Even Statistics Canada is unable to include the number of abortions
being done in British Columbia in their latest statistics because the
numbers are 'too unreliable to report'. Well, we want
some reliability put back in those numbers. Why should BC be the
only province where this information is hidden from the public?
“If they are allowed to
do this with abortion statistics, what's to prevent them from putting
anything away from public scrutiny?” Hof warned.
Hof's warning was backed
up by an April 10th op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, which described how
the province's formerly revered freedom of information process has
fallen to shambles in recent years.
“Unfortunately, British
Columbia’s once vaunted Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act has come to represent not a triumph of transparency but a
legacy of betrayed promises, corrupted ideals, cynicism, sophistry and
just plain rotten values on the part of the people we elected to
govern us,” wrote Stephen Hume.
Hume said that, “Every
shred of information gathered, analysed, held, traded or simply
squatted upon by government belongs to the people of British
Columbia.”
We agree 100% with that statement.
We remember the words of current Deputy Attorney
General of BC and former BC Information & Privacy Commissioner
David Loukidelis, when he stated that the legislation that censored
abortion information would “....for the first time,
specify a subject that is essentially off-limits under the FOI Act.”
(March 2001)
MP
launches effort to protect women from forced abortions
Rod
Bruinooge
DEBORAH GYAPONG
CANADIAN CATHOLIC NEWS
OTTAWA - The Harper government will not support
Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge's bill to prevent women from being
coerced into having abortions. That means the new private member's
bill stands little chance of passing.
The Winnipeg South MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary
pro-life caucus, introduced Bill C-510 into the House of Commons April
14.
The Conservative backbencher told journalists the next day he had
support from members of other parties as well as from within Tory
ranks.
Bruinooge named his bill Roxanne's Law, after Roxanne Fernando, a
23-year-old Winnipeg woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her
into an abortion in 2007. When she refused, the boyfriend hired his
best friend to kill her, Bruinooge said.
"Even under intense pressure and coercion, Roxanne chose
life," he said. "After several beatings meant to kill her
and her baby, both were buried alive in a snow bank where they
eventually died."
Bruinooge said he hoped his bill would prevent threats and coercion
from escalating to murder. He also said it would send a message to
Canadian society that coercing a woman to have an abortion is wrong.
"Roxanne's story had a big impact on me personally," said
Bruinooge.
He said he has heard many stories of women being intimidated into
having abortions. He insisted the bill has nothing to do with whether
abortion remains legal and expected MPs who are pro-choice to support
the bill.
The Harper government quickly distanced itself from the bill.
"With respect to Mr. Bruinooge's bill, the government will not
initiate or support any legislation that reopens the abortion
debate," said Andrew McDougall, a spokesman for the Prime
Minister's Office April 16, in an email.
Bruinooge said he respects the prime minister's position. "I
find it unfortunate, though, that, in Canada, we are resistant to
discuss any legal matter that in any way relates to abortion. I think
that's not healthy for our country."
Pro-life
Students Face Possible Expulsion from Calgary University
By Patrick B. Craine
CALGARY, Alberta, April 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Eight pro-life students at the University of Calgary (UofC), faced
with possible expulsion for their activism, gathered this morning to
deliver a simple message to their university: “Do unto us whatever
you desire, punish us however you wish; but our convictions shall not
change, and we shall not alter our actions based on intimidation.”
These words were read by Cameron Wilson, vice president of UofC's
Campus Pro-Life (CPL), at a press conference this morning in front of
the school library. Wilson is one of eight CPL members who were
notified late last week that they have been charged with non-academic
misconduct over their presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project
(GAP) on April 8-9.
The group has put up the GAP display, which compares abortion to
past historical atrocities through the use of graphic images, on the
University of Calgary grounds without incident eight times since 2006.
In 2009, the university charged six students with trespassing in
relation to the display, but the crown prosecutor stayed these charges
prior to a trial scheduled for November 2009. The university has
threatened participating students with non-academic misconduct charges
on the occasion of each display, but this is the first time they are
following through with their threat.
UofC has attempted to force the club to turn their signs inwards so
they are not facing passersby, but CPL has refused to comly.
Leah Hallman, CPL's president, told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that UofC's
demand “is essentially saying that we can speak as long as nobody
can hear us, we can show images as long as nobody can see them.”
Hallman explained that on April 8th campus security ordered them to
turn their signs inward, but they refused as they always have.
Then security told them to leave the campus and the students again
refused, “knowing that we have the right to be there.”
UofC is charging the students with having failed to comply with an
order from campus security, but according to Hallman, “campus
security has no right to censor our ... legitimate free speech.”
“It's absolutely ridiculous that the university, which receives
most of its money from taxpayer dollars is not permitting certain
ideas to be displayed on campus – the pro-life ideas, our viewpoint
that abortion is wrong.”
“If [UofC] were a private institution then they would have the
right to censor whatever viewpoints they want,” explained John
Carpay, a lawyer with the pro-free speech Canadian Constitution
Foundation, who has represented the students since the fall of 2008.
“But they get the majority of their funding from Alberta taxpayers,
and so they don't have a right to discriminate based on viewpoint.”
Carpay agreed with the students that UofC is attempting to censor
the students' opinion. “Being asked to turn your signs inwards
in such a way that nobody can see them is censorship,” he told LSN.
Each student is required to appear at a hearing before UofC's
Vice-Provost in the next few weeks, to which they have been told they
are not permitted to bring legal counsel. There the students
could face penalties including probation or even expulsion. Once
a decision is rendered, there are two levels of appeal within the
university and then, if necessary, the case would go to the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench.
Carpay said that rather than going to court, he hopes “the
university would just lay off and stop censoring the students.”
In their statement at the press conference this morning, the
students referred to the criticism levied against GAP that the images
portrayed are offensive and hurtful. They asked: “If an action is
too terrible to look at, how then can it be tolerated? Why should we
leave unchallenged and undebated a practice so horrific that words
alone fail to describe it?”
“We shall not abandon the unborn child to be murdered,” they
stated. “We shall not desert the single mom in crisis. We
shall not allow the evil of abortion to remain unexposed. We
shall not be intimidated by the threat of force. We shall not be
scared by the threat of expulsion. We shall not back down from
the stand we have made.”
“If they are to punish us, then we are content to let history
revile them for their suppression of liberty,” they added.
“If they are to punish us, then let the blood of the unborn child be
upon their heads. If they are to punish us then let the pain of
the suffering mom be upon their conscience.”
“So let the university do whatever action their twisted worldview
sees fit, for we fear not the judgment of tyranny,” they concluded.
The university told LSN in a statement that, "Due to privacy
concerns, the University of Calgary will not comment on specific
matters relating to misconduct proceedings."
Contact Information:
Dr. Warren Veale, Interim President
Office of the President
Executive Suite
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
Phone: 403-220-5617
Fax: 403-289-6800
Email: interim.president@ucalgary.ca
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Former Patient
takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Former Patient takes up Challenge by
Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of
Parliament, says she is ready to debate abortion with anyone
May 4, 2010. Calgary. In response to Dr.
Hedy Fry's claim that the abortion debate is unnecessary in
Canada, one of her former patients is publicly challenging her to
discuss the issue - a patient cared for by Dr.
"She obviously hasn't paid attention
to what's going on at universities recently," said Stephanie
Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical
Reform (CCBR). Gray cited student groups across the country
engaging in the debate: "Pro-life students are being
censored, banned and even charged for trespassing on their own
schools," said Gray.
"That doesn't sound like a dead
debate to me."
Gray said she herself, and members of her
staff, have faced great resistance from abortion advocates
attempting to shut their presentations down-and even successfully
doing so at some schools. But this doesn't discourage her.
"The fact that we're being invited to
speak at schools at all means that the debate isn't over. There's
a growing movement of young people who are saying that it is
undemocratic for Canadians of one generation to close the debate
on such an important topic for all Canadians."
Gray, whose own mother was a patient of
Dr. Fry when she was pregnant with her, says a new generation of
Canadians who weren't old enough to vote when abortion was debated
in the 1980's, are demanding that their voice be heard now.
"If Dr. Fry is truly prepared to
debate anyone on abortion then I would be glad to take her up on
that challenge," said Gray. "The fact that there are
people of my generation who are willing and able to talk about the
great injustice happening to the unborn means that the debate is
not only necessary but that it something Canadians want to
hear."
Gray said she sent Fry's office an
invitation for her to participate in a public debate and will
await her response.
where it referenced you saying, "Fry
says she has all her arguments ready and is set to debate anyone
on the topic, but she feels it's unnecessary."
I
am also aware that in 2008 you were willing to do a debate on
abortion at the UBC medical school but the event never went ahead.
I am therefore asking if you'd be willing
to debate me in a public forum about abortion?
As a representative of the Canadian Centre
for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), I have been speaking and traveling
across the country on abortion for over
8 years, which includes many formal
debates.In my
experience the abortion debate is very alive.And yet, I was intrigued by the aforementioned CBC report
that, when reporting on your feeling that the debate is
unnecessary, said, "Because the question in Canada is
settled; so there's no need to re-examine it."
From
Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of Victoria,
pro-life students are reopening the abortion debate on university
campuses and are getting national attention for their work. The
fact that abortion advocates at those schools feel it is necessary
to ban, censor or even threaten with arrest, students for simply
protesting abortion or holding debates on abortion tells me that
the debate is far from finished.There is a need to re-examine it.
As the former minister for the Status of
Women and a medical doctor, I know that you are well aware that in
Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion. Moreover, Canadian
taxpayers pay for those abortions. In other words, we are all
affected by this issue. This is why it is surprising that you
would feel the debate is unnecessary.
However, I am glad to know that you are
also more than ready to debate anyone on the abortion issue.
When my mom was pregnant with me, you were
her medical doctor.And
in that sense, and after my birth, you were my doctor too. You may
not have been aware then, but the pro-life values of my parents
are ones that I advocate now and I would be glad to take you up on
your offer of a debate.
I would be glad to participate in an
uncensored discussion over abortion with you.
For your convenience, perhaps you'd be
interested in debating at the University of British Columbia,
where I graduated from.
Please feel free to contact us so we can
work out the details.
Sincerely yours,
Stephanie Gray
Executive Director
-30-
--
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform
(CCBR) Box 123, 5-8720 Macleod Trail SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
May 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- More and larger Marches for Life are taking place http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about-the-debate.html
cities across http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about-the-debate.html
this year to coincide with the annual National March for Life
in Ottawa on May 13.
Intended
for those who want to make a pro-life statement but do not have the
time or resources to make the trek to Ottawa, these regional marches
take place in nearly every province and, like the National March for
Life, have seen an increase in participation every year.
west to east, the following cities are hosting a March for
Life this year:
VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA: the B.C. third annual
March for Life takes place on May 13. The day will start with noon
Mass at St. Andrew’s Cathedral. Then participants will make their
way to Centennial Square in downtown Victoria. At 2 p.m. they will
march to the B.C. Legislature down Government Street. After the march,
musicians will entertain participants until the speakers take to the
microphone.
“The March for Life is an opportunity for all who believe in the
sanctity of human life to stand together and publicly proclaim it,”
said Michele Smillie of the Archdiocese of Vancouver’s Respect Life
Office.
This year’s event is being co-sponsored by the B.C. and Yukon
Knights of Columbus, Burnaby Pro-Life Society, Campaign Life Coalition
B.C., Chilliwack Pro-Life Society, Nelson Pro-Life Society, Elk Valley
Pro Life, Surrey-Delta Pro Life, and Right to Life, Rossland.
EDMONTON, ALBERTA: The third annual March for Life in
Edmonton is setay, May 13. Events gin
Seattle Mom:
School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me
By Patrick B. Craine
SEATTLE, Washington, March 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– A Seattle mother is furious after learning that her 15-year-old
daughter was sent by her school's health center for a secret abortion,
reports ABC-affiliate KOMO.
The mother, identified only as “Jill,” says her daughter was
given a pregnancy test at Ballard High School's Teen Health Center,
which came back positive. Rather than informing the parents, she
said, the center gave the girl a pass and put her in a taxi for the
abortuary, all during school
She added that she had signed a consent form allowing her daughter to
be treated at the health center, thinking it covered issues like
earaches, sports physicals, or even contraception, but wasn't aware they
would be arranging abortions.
"Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or
facilitating abortion." she said. "Signing this paper makes me
feel like my rights were completely stripped away."
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which oversees
the center, explained that Washington state does not recognize parents'
opinions on such issues. "At any age in the state of
Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of
pregnancy," he said.
Contact Information:
Principal Phil Brockman
Ballard High School
1418 NW 65th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Phone: 206-252-1000
Fax: 206-252-1001
E-mail: pbrockman@seattleschools.org
Friday
March 26, 2010
Conservative MP Criticizes Ignatieff’s
Abortion Advocacy as “Cynical Politics”
By Patrick B. Craine
OTTAWA, Ontario, March 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- A Conservative Member of Parliament slammed Liberal leader Michael
Ignatieff in an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN) yesterday over the
latter's persistent attempts at pushing abortion in the government's G8
maternal and child health initiative, most recently through a failed
Liberal motion.
“I think it was very cynical politics on behalf of Mr.
Ignatieff,” commented Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC). “I
think he's crossed the line between pro-choice and simply being
pro-abortion, and I think that's who Michael Ignatieff is.”
The
Liberals put forward a motion on Tuesday calling on the government to
offer a “full range of reproductive health services” in their Third
World maternal and child health initiative. Though abortion was
not mentioned, the motion was interpreted as being a clear demand for
abortion, based on its criticism of George W. Bush's Mexico City Policy,
which prohibited overseas funding for pro-abortion groups.
In putting forward the motion, Del Mastro said Ignatieff “was
trying to divide our caucus, divide the country, on an issue that I
think Canadians are united on,” namely the maternal health initiative.
The motion, proposed by Liberal MP Bob Rae, was eventually defeated
in a vote of 138-144, partly because three pro-life Liberals – Paul
Szabo, Dan McTeague, and John McKay – defied their party's whip and
voted against. Thirteen other Liberals didn't show up for the
vote, many due to their pro-life convictions.
That the motion was defeated largely by their own party was a
devastating embarrassment to the Liberals, and Ignatieff in particular,
who has acknowledged that his leadership is being called into question.
At a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday morning, the day after the
vote, Ignatieff reportedly accepted full blame for failing to ensure
they had the necessary votes. Party whip Rodger Cuzner and other
senior caucus members also apologized for the gaff.
Ignatieff nevertheless has renewed his vow to fight for
“reproductive rights” both in Canada and abroad. “The key
issue here is that this party reaffirms and has pressed with, in my view
considerable courage, since January, the absolute fundamental importance
for Canada to remain consistent in its support of reproductive health
rights for women at home and abroad,” he told reporters following a
caucus meeting the day after the vote. “And we will continue to
do so.”
According to Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life
Coalition (CLC), Ignatieff is “adamantly pro-abortion and he's dragged
his party right along Liberal
motion defeated; no clarity on abortion
March
23, 2010, from thestar.com
OTTAWA
– A divisive parliamentary vote designed to smoke out the Harper
government's attitude to funding foreign abortions came and went Tuesday
with voters none the wiser on Conservative policy — or that of the
Liberal Opposition, for that matter.
Liberal MP Bob Rae's motion concerning a maternal health initiative at
this summer's G8 summit was nominally supported by all three opposition
parties in the Commons, but was defeated 144-138 when a number of Liberal
MPs failed to show up for the vote.
Three staunchly pro-life Liberals also voted with the Tories.
Conservatives had called the motion "a transparent attempt to reopen
the abortion debate," while steadfastly refusing to clarify the
government's position on the matter.
They voted en masse against ensuring that G8 leaders consider a "full
range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options,
including contraception" when considering the problem of maternal and
child health.
Government members claimed the motion included "rash, extreme
anti-American rhetoric" because it specifically slammed the policy of
former Republican president George W. Bush, whose administration refused
for ideological reasons to fund non-governmental organizations that
promoted contraception or made abortion referrals.
That U.S. policy was immediately overturned by President Barack Obama when
he took office.
For their part, the Liberals failed to use the words abortion or
termination of pregnancy in their motion, and Rae danced around the issue
when pressed.
"What we can say as a country is we are not going to discriminate
against NGOs that advocate on behalf of women, including referrals for
abortion services," Rae said outside the House.
So why not include abortion specifically in the motion?
"Well, you know, I don't think it's a matter of . . . abortion under
the . . . you know, not a matter of saying abortion is something we're
promoting as a policy," said the usually smooth-speaking Liberal.
The result was a mealy-mouthed debate that pandered to various factions
while clarifying little.
OTTAWA
— Liberals are hoping to pin down Prime Minister Stephen Harper over
where he stands on abortion in his G8 maternal-health initiative for the
Third World.
The Opposition is to introduce a motion in the House of Commons on
Tuesday demanding that the plan cover a "full range" of
family-planning options, which would include contraception and abortion.
The Conservative government has been unclear about whether the plan
will fund such options.
The motion says funding all options would be consistent with the
policy of previous governments -- both Conservative and Liberal -- and
with the approach approved by all G8 countries, including Canada, just
last year.
The motion should pass easily with the support of all three
opposition parties.
It could put the Conservatives in an awkward spot, forcing them to
clarify the issue and potentially alienate one faction or another within
the party.
The Harper government has sent mixed messages about the prime
minister's decision to champion maternal and child health at June's G8
summit, which he is to host in Huntsville, Ont.
This week, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the
initiative won't include family planning "in any way, shape or
form."
But Harper and International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda later
insisted they're open to considering all options, including
contraception, for saving the lives of the world's poorest women. . . .
.
Pro-Aborts
at University of BC Censor Pro-Life Display
By Patrick B. Craine
VANCOUVER, B.C., March 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Dozens of pro-abortion protesters at the University of British
Columbia (UBC) disrupted a pro-life demonstration last Tuesday, which
was being sponsored by the University's pro-life club, Lifeline.
The club was running the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which
compares abortion to past genocidal atrocities - displaying, for
example, an image of a Holocaust victim beside an image of an aborted
baby.
Lifeline has run a GAP campaign nearly every semester since the fall of
1999. The campus pro-abortion group, Students for Reproductive
Choice (SRC), usually lines up with their own protest opposite the GAP
displays. This year the two groups had signed an agreement with the
Student Union stating that they would stay 30 feet away from each other
and remain civil and peaceful during the demonstration.
“Unfortunately, certain students from the SRC club did not follow
protocol,” said Ania Kasprzak, co-president of Lifeline. SRC
members, along with other protesters from the University of Victoria and
the Vancouver community, moved in front of the GAP display, where they
held large yellow banners with pro-abortion slogans such as, “Unwanted
Pregnancy is NOT a choice” and “Full Access to Free Abortion.”
Kasprzak told LifeSiteNews (LSN) in an e-mail that it was “an
emotional day for all involved” and asserted that the members of
Lifeline “were not treated with the fundamental rights of a Canadian
Citizen.”
“We were denied the right to freedom of expression, and our attempt
at sharing the painful reality of abortion with the students of UBC was
met with chanting, censorship and discrimination,” she wrote.
“The University did not make any effort to remove the protesters and
did not intervene on behalf of the Pro-life students representing
GAP.”
Stephanie Gray, co-founder and executive director of the Canadian
Centre for Bioethical Reform, who attended the event, told LSN that
university representatives maintained that the protesters were free
to stand in front of the display because they were not UBC students, and
so were not bound by the agreement made between the pro-life and
pro-abortion groups.
“My response was to say to them: 'So essentially you're saying
non-students have more freedom on this campus than students, because
students are limited to the one area',” explained Gray, who is a UBC
alumna.
She also said that the university has made pains to limit the event for
years in ways that she called “unjust and unreasonable.”
The pro-life club is only allowed to host the display once per
semester, and only between 10 am and 2 pm. They are limited to 4
signs that each have to face the same direction, said Gray; whereas the
GAP displays in other places, such as the University of Calgary, feature
10 to 12 signs. She said it was even more “frustrating” this
year because they were told beforehand that the displays had to be set up
to face each other in a U shape, which limited visibility even more.
Gray said that they “fully support the right to express one's self
from the other side, to make the claims they want, but not to suppress
us.” Setting the pro-abortion banners in front of the pro-life
display, she said, “was a clear sign that they were interested in
suppression not expression, because they could have been just as visible
in other areas.”
Lifeline was “intimidated and bullied and the university didn't stop
it,” Gray added. “So they participated in the bullying
by letting it happen.”
Kasprzak noted that, following the event, she has spoken with “a
great number of UBC Pro-choice students who are siding with us and shocked
at the way the University treated the campus Pro-life students.”
“Some of their testimonies demonstrate that it is not only Pro-Life
people who are outraged over this blatant injustice against human
rights,” she said.
February 5, 2010
Should This Woman
Abort? YOU Decide
That's the premise of a new -- but fictional -- reality show, where the
audience makes the choice
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.
Print
Mary
Wagner’s mother, Jane Wagner, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she
received a call from Mary this morning saying that she had been acquitted,
but was unable to provide specific details about the judge’s decision.
Attempts to contact Mary have been unsuccessful.
TODAY'S
HEADLINES
E-MAIL
PRINT
Intended
for those who want to make a pro-life statement but do not have the
time or resources to make the trek to Ottawa, these regional marches
take place in nearly every province and, like the National March for
Life, have seen an increase in participation every year.
