Hate crime at Vancouver Crisis Pregnancy Centre

This past Monday, the exterior of the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver was vandalized. Red paint was thrown at all their windows, doors, signage, and the sidewalk entrance. Offensive language was scribbled in the red paint.

There were thousands of dollars in damage to the centre. The centre's signage is probably not salvageable so will have to be replaced.

Brian Norton, Executive Director of the centre, told me that the police informed him that the vandalism was not random, but rather that their centre was specifically targeted. And that the police are viewing this as a ‘hate crime’.

Anyone who is familiar with the tactics of some “pro-choice” people know that these kinds of bullying tactics are nothing new.

Last week I watched a video posted on Facebook. In the video a pizza business owner screamed and ranted obscenities at some very peaceful respectful pro-life protesters. The protesters were bullied off the public corner where they were, and forced to relinquish their freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly rights by this raving person. If they hadn't, who knows what kind of physical violence might have ensued?

(Johnathon Van Maren talks about this disgusting behaviour here: Viral video of Toronto woman swearing at pro-life activists shows what the abortion movement is truly like)

Subsequent comments to this harassment on Twitter showed the jubilation that ensued when the pro-"choice” people “won”.

This comment was posted on ARCC's website regarding the screaming pizza owner:

"Our favorite vegan pizza magician Jen is getting a lot of attention for how she reacted to anti-choice protesters outside of her business. We 100% support and applaud her!! Send her positive vibes and supportive messages, she's our hero!"

How do they win? By intimidation. By bullying. By screaming. By swearing. By forcing us to give up our charter rights to speech, assembly and conscience. And by vandalizing our properties.

Are these two incidents connected? I have no idea. What I do know is that these kinds of extreme hateful bullying tactics by pro-“choice” extremists have become the norm against anyone who is pro-life.

Just one of the many crisis pregnancy centres in Canada

The amazing staff at the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver.

More than 1,000 late term abortions in 2017-2018

Below is the latest data from CIHI (2017/2018) on Canada's late term abortions.

(Update: I forgot to put the word "livebirth" in the four following statistics.)

There were 8 livebirth abortions done in Canada with a gestational age of 25-28 weeks.

There were 102 livebirth abortions done in Canada with a gestational age 21-24 weeks gestation.

There were 31 livebirth abortions done in Canada with a gestational age of 17-20 weeks gestation.

There were 5 livebirth abortions done in Canada with a gestational age of unknown gestational age and/or > 29 weeks gestation.

Totals:

• 910 late-term abortions in Canada resulting in a stillbirth. 
• 146 late-term abortions in Canada resulting in a livebirth. 

Last year's numbers.

All of these 1,056 were late-term abortions (20 weeks or greater gestation).

These numbers do not include late-term abortions from Quebec, so this number could be and probably is higher.

Definitions from CIHI:

Stillbirths from Termination of Pregnancy:

"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus or newborn"

Newborns from Termination of Pregnancy:

"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn"

Stillborn Abstracting:

"A stillborn is any intrauterine fetal demise or termination of pregnancy occurring at or after 20 completed weeks of gestation in which the fetus shows no signs of life. A liveborn resulting from a medical abortion prior to 20 weeks is considered pre-viable for the purposes of classification and an abstract is not created."

When a Charter right isn't a Charter right

There are currently four Charter challenges being brought against the federal government regarding the Summer Jobs Program's unconstitutional attestation clause. Most likely there will be more coming.

This is all really good news for the people of Canada, and especially for those of us (all of us?) who value our Charter rights.

The media, even those from the left, see the massive problem with the Trudeau attestation. In fact the only people in Canada who think the attestation is fair--are Justin Trudeau and maybe some of his MPs, but most likely not all of them.

All this because our feminist prime minister decided to invent a new Charter right: "reproductive rights". Also known as the Right to Abortion. Justin Trudeau also likes to use the new buzz words "Charter values". Another meaningless notion.

Except instead of doing anything constitutional to create this new "right", he simply dreamed it into existence.

And now companies who have been denied funds under the SJP have to defend their actual Charter rights--all in the name of a non-existing Charter right.

In other words, under a Justin Trudeau government, actual Charter rights can only become actual Charter rights once you go to court, spend a whole lot of money, and spend a whole lot of time to put forward your case. A case that any grade school child could easily comprehend if you put it to them like this:

"I have a right to my religious beliefs. I have a right to not agree with abortion because I think it's morally wrong. I have a right to listen to my conscience. So why do I need to go to court to ask a judge to grant me these rights? I thought they were already mine? The Charter says I have them, so why can't I have them without going to court? 

Is a Prime Minister really allowed to create a new right, just because he wants to? I don't understand this."

And there is another important fact about all this.

Can you imagine the millions of dollars the tax payer will have to fork out so that Justin Trudeau can defend his make believe Right to Abortion? After all, these are his "charter values" not ours. So why will we have to pay for Justin Trudeau to defend himself?

Open letter to ARCC from a crisis pregnancy centre (Part 2)

Back on May 1, ARCC wrote this on their Facebook page about Valley Care Pregnancy Centre:

"We are very disturbed that Scotsburn Milk, Saputo, and Avery's Farm Markets are raising money for the Valley Care Pregnancy Centre. Valley Care, according to its website, does not provide abortion referrals despite saying that they provide "abortion education." Their website also has a disclaimer that reads: "This information is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional medical advice." 

Not only do Pregnancy Crisis Centres operate under anti-choice missions, they provide misinformation and seek to persuade or bully people who want to access an abortion. LOV-ED is an abstinence only education program."

ARCC was "very disturbed" that this CPC was receiving funding from businesses. Doesn't that seem kind of strange to you? It does to me. What business is it of ARCC to care about what a business does, or doesn't do with its money?

Then this statement:

"Not only do Pregnancy Crisis Centres operate under anti-choice missions, they provide misinformation and seek to persuade or bully people who want to access an abortion."

None of these allegations are true or factual as I have written at length before.

ARCC also says that CPCs won't refer for abortions. True enough.

But why should CPCs refer for abortions? If CPCs are against abortions why would they refer women to have them? Wouldn't that be unethical? And women in Canada don't even need a referral to have an abortion in the first place. So no referral is necessary.

ARCC used to complain that CPCs didn't say that they wouldn't refer for abortions.  Now when CPCs explicitly say they won't refer for abortions, ARCC is still complaining. You can't have it both ways.

In response to ARCC's own misinformation and bullying, Valley Care Pregnancy Centre wrote ARCC a letter on their Facebook page. What they wrote was humble, loving and truthful:

"We are deeply saddened and distressed by the misunderstanding your organization displays concerning who we are and what we do as a pregnancy centre in Canada. We are simply convinced of the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death because all humanity is made in the image of God. Therefore, we seek to inform people of the wonders of life including fetal development and the risks of abortion while making strong, loving and tangible support available for those feeling the pressure of friends, family or finances to end the life God has created within them."

Their full letter here.

ARCC apparently has a policy where they won't debate abortion. Why? Because the "choice" to kill pre-born children isn't up for debate in Arthur's world.

ARCC:

"We do not believe that abortion access and choice is a debate. We are not here to argue with anyone about that. Our job is to ensure that people have access to facts. While we have a policy against engaging with anti-abortion debate on our Facebook page, we felt it was necessary to respond to an Open Letter posted as a comment by the Valley Centre Crisis Pregnancy Centre in Nova Scotia."

ARCC goes on with their usual abortion propaganda. You can read it. Or not. Your choice.

Finally, Valley Care Pregnancy Centre asks a very good question I thought:

Since most abortions in Canada occur between 9-12 weeks (with about 10% done after 12 weeks, according to your publications), why do you only display the outside of the fetal sac of a 6-week embryo, but do not show the development inside the 6-week fetal sac; and why do you not show any other fetal images between 7-12 weeks or beyond?

The women we have been honoured to work with have told us they didn’t like to see images of human development between 7-12 weeks and beyond because they were trying to deny that reality. They told us that if they had been given a safe, loving environment to share their story and receive complete information about what was going on inside them, they may have made a different decision, and would not have to live with the regret they now carry.

Therefore, we encourage you to add images to your media list of fetal development, inside the fetal sac, for weeks 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 so that women can make an informed health decision based on how far along their pregnancy has progressed. (www.EHD.org has amazing images and video.)

ARCC's response:

"Abortion clinics have fetal development photos available if patients want to see them, and they can be easily found online too. We are a political group that protects abortion rights, and there is no reason for us to host fetal development photos – especially on our “stock photo” page, the point of which is to stop media from using pictures of fetuses and pregnant bellies. Reproductive rights are not about fetuses. Reproductive rights are about the rights and circumstances of women and transgender people. We are opposed to the type of visual misinformation that CPCs are notorious for disseminating without proper context. People will always have abortions and misinforming them or making them feel guilty will not change that."

"Reproductive rights are not about fetuses"? Well actually, yes they are. The words "Reproductive rights" are just euphemizing abortion. And abortion is all about human rights for two human beings: the woman and the fetus.

ARCC won't show fetal pictures on their website because that could dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she sees what the child looks like, since a fetus looks like a child. It might change her mind about abortion.

I'm struggling with these words "Visual misinformation". Is ARCC saying that pictures of a fetus at various stages of development is visual misinformation? I hope not.

Here are the pictures of fetal development that ARCC won't show.