Make your voice heard on assisted suicide

There will be public consultations on assisted suicide in Ontario.

Citizens are invited to attend the consultations, take a survey, or email your thoughts to the Ontario government.

How can Justin Trudeau present himself as being Catholic?

From SHEILA GUNN REID at Rebel Media:

"I'm pro-life. I believe that a unique and precious human life exists at conception. 

I say I believe it but what I mean is that I know it to be true, ethically, medically and spiritually. 

"We never really knew how Stephen Harper felt on the subject personally. He never proclaimed anything the way I just did. But as a man of principle, he realized that abortion is a matter of conscience. Stephen Harper understood that for many people, people like me, being pro-life is a matter of our very salvation. Asking us to be pro-choice is like asking us to literally sell our soul. So when the issue of opening up a debate about when life begins arose, Stephen Harper did not whip the vote. How could he ask anyone to put their soul on the line for the party? 

But that’s what Justin Trudeau is doing. He insisted all of his MPs be pro-choice. 

Trudeau made being pro-choice a condition for being given the green light to run as a Liberal party candidate. He really did. I'm not a theologian but I am a lifelong Catholic. 

Trudeau's position is a strange one for a man who presents himself as publicly Catholic and moreover it's totalitarian. How could anyone demand that a person of faith choose the Liberal party over their own moral convictions?"

"Defending" Planned Parenthood - haha

Sometimes social media is awesome. 

Why the Ontario Government had to hide abortion statistics

"In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public." 
                                   Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2000

I think I've finally figured out why the Ontario government refuses to answer my questions about why they hide abortion information. It is because Kathleen Wynne et al cannot use the reason that not releasing the information is to protect the safety of a person or building. That was the argument the Ministry of Health used in 2000. And the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't buy it.

So this time around Kathleen and friends simply changed the law to exclude abortion information completely from the prying eyes of nosy citizens. And while the opposition Conservatives snoozed, the Liberals quietly changed the law.

Pretty ingenious really.

Of course we know the government's real reason was pure politics: they don't like pesky pro-lifers asking them about abortion.

You see, in 2000, the Ontario Ministry of Health tried to withhold information when a (presumably pro-life) group requested abortion billings through a Freedom of Information request. The group asked for:

"the number of therapeutic abortions billed to OHIP in each of the years 1993 to 1997"

The Ministry refused to release the information. It defended its actions on the grounds that pro-lifers are violent:

"The Ministry submits: [B]ased on past and continuing events, there is ample evidence to support a reasonable expectation that disclosure of the requested information could endanger the life or physical safety of various individuals as well as endangering the security of the facilities where abortions are performed, and, in the course of violent demonstrations, the security of public buildings such as the Queen's Park legislative or other government buildings. 

Harassment has been, and remains, a reality in Ontario for those involved in the abortion debate from a Pro Choice perspective [notice the bias here against pro-lifers. Because no, no, no, pro-choicers are never violent]. Since 1991, this harassment of patients, providers, staff and their family members and neighbours by Pro Life activists has, in some instances, escalated into violence...

...The context in which these and other violent events have occurred is one liable to be fed by the slightest provocation. Even data reflecting merely the total number of abortions performed in Ontario on an annual basis, or the total number of providers performing them, is at risk of being manipulated and presented to the public in the most inflammatory way possible. 

The ministry is not suggesting that the appellant may manipulate the data in this way. We are merely pointing to the realistic conclusion that a disclosure to the world@ (see Order M-96 and others), by whatever means, is much more than hypothetical in the circumstances of this Appeal. It cannot be ignored that the appellant is a member of the media, from whom wide public circulation of the requested information can be expected. The eventual recipients of the information would doubtless include many individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate, a number of whom may elect to employ acts of harassment, vandalism and/or physical violence against persons with whom they disagree or of whose behaviour they deeply disapprove. This is why disclosure of the particular records in this Appeal, unlike those at issue in Order P-1545, would alter the current situation in a way sufficient to raise the reasonable expectation of the harms in clause 14(1)(e) and (i).  

But the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner did not agree with the Ministry's arguments in its decision, and ordered the Ministry to release the abortion information:

"Pursuant to a request under a freedom of information statute, the Supreme Court of Illinois in Family Life League v. Department of Public Aid, 112 Ill. 2d 449 (1986) ordered disclosure of (among other information) the numbers of abortions performed by providers, rejecting arguments that disclosure would lead to threats and harassment. 

Like the B.C. and Ontario cases, the U.S. authorities suggest that generalized statistical data regarding abortion services should be accessible under freedom of information legislation. The information at issue in this appeal consists of general statistical information on a province-wide basis. This information cannot be linked to any individual facility or person involved in the provision of abortion services. I do not accept that the sequence of events, from disclosure to the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(e) and (i), could reasonably be expected to occur. While I accept the Ministry's submission, supported by ample evidence, that individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate have been subjected to threats, intimidation, and acts of violence, in my view, any link between disclosure and the harms in these sections is exaggerated. The evidence before me does not establish a reasonable expectation of endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, or to the security of a building, vehicle or system or procedure established for the protection of items within the meaning of sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Act. 

This finding is in keeping with a fundamental purpose of the Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada: 

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry . . Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable . . . [Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 403, per La Forest J. (dissenting on other rounds)]. "

In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public." (Emphasis added)

As we know from my own attempts to get abortion information, we have never been given a reason why Ontario government changed the law. Of course they could never say it is because of violence, because the IPC already ruled against that argument in 2000.

The government could never use that argument again, because clearly they would be overruled.

ARPA's Lighthouse news

Check out this week's edition of ARPA's Lighthouse News.

Last week, ARPA released the latest in its series of “Respectfully Submitted” policy papers.  This one deals with Climate Change. On the feature this week, ARPA policy analyst Colin Postma outlines some of the highlights of the paper, and responds to some of the criticism it has generated.

In the news, Trinity Western University had another victory last week in its efforts to establish a law school at its campus near Langley, BC. The BC Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Law Society of BC which would have prevented graduates from TWU’s law school from practicing in BC. The ruling re-instates an earlier decision which would allow the school to go ahead.

ARPA was an intervenor in this case and on the program this week, we talk with lawyer André Schutten about the Court’s ruling and what it may mean in the broader context of an issue that seems quite likely to be headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has released some more abortion statistics. The total number of hospital abortions done across the country in calendar year 2014 was 33,931; that was down slightly from the 35,003 the year before. However, the figures are incomplete, because they don’t include a whole swath of statistics which are being deliberately repressed by Freedom of Information laws in at least two provinces. We speak with pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney about the numbers.  

A church youth group near Chatham Ontario put up a pro-life display last month. 1000 crosses in a field – each one representing 100 babies aborted in Canada every year. Vandals knocked down every cross on the weekend of December 6^th. Those crosses are back up now, and the youth decided to make the rebuilding project about more than just the original intent.  

Also on the program this week, some expressly Christian analysis of Donald Trump’s plan to bar all Muslim immigrationinto the U.S.A. as a way to fight terrorism. We speak to Dr. Scott Masson from Tyndale University College in Toronto about what Trump’s posturing has done to the broader context of the U.S. Presidential race.

The anti-choice pro-abortions

Jeff Durham (of Molly Matters) wonders why Joyce Arthur et all don't like Bill C-484, Unborn Victms of Crime. (Jeff tragically lost his wife and unborn child in one go to murder.)

In fact Durham wonders if ARCC is really anti-choice:

How can any reasonable person who claims to advocate for the choice of a woman call a law that would make it so that the choice was only hers “anti-choice”? 

What is your true agenda? How can you put forth no effort to defend the choice of one woman when it is violated? Or the choice of all of the women who were murdered when they were carrying a child? 

How can you conscionably tell people that to protect what a woman has chosen would take away their right to make a choice? 

If it is not the choice of women that you defend, who’s choice exactly is it? 

Are you even conscious of your contradiction? 

Canada is waking up to your double talk. 

Molly was Cassie’s choice and Molly matters."

Calling the pro-abortions anti-choice makes complete sense. Because the only choice they ever advocate for is the choice to dismember, decapitate and disembowel pre-born babies. The pro-abortions almost never advocate for adoption or, for women to keep their baby heaven forbid.

I also got a good chuckle out of Fake Person's indignant tweets to Jeff Durham about his blog post which she clearly didn't like--she tweeted him at least five times with the very same link to some bill the pro-abortions would support. As if Durham was an imbecile and one tweet wasn't enough.

When Ken Epp first introduced his Unborn Victims of Crime Bill Joyce Arthur wrote a lot of nonsensical stuff on the bill. Ken Epp provided some excellent rebuttals to Arthur. It's funny how often pro-life people have to always spend time correcting Arthur. Well it's not really funny, but you know what I mean.

Which magazine will you read this Christmas?

Mary the most powerful (pro-life) woman who ever lived on Earth, will be on, and in, the December issue of National Geographic magazine.

"National Geographic’s December cover story, “How the Virgin Mary Became the World’s Most Powerful Woman,” details how Mary’s “image and legacy are found and celebrated around the world.” The issue is currently available at print newsstands as well as online."

We don't even know what Mary looked like. And of course, it doesn't matter does it? Because for Mary, her power and her appeal don't come from her looks.

Then there's Justin Trudeau, the most "pro-choice" person who ever lived on planet Earth, on the front cover of Vogue.

Pro-abortions make more stuff up

Joyce Arthur didn't like Jonathon Van Maren's article about Robert Lewis Dear who opened fire near and inside a Planned Parenthood near Colorado Springs, Colorado, resulting in three fatalities and nine other casualties.

Joyce thinks that pro-lifers incite violence. I wonder what she calls what Planned Parenthood does when they dismember, decapitate and disembowel children?

So she wrote this as a rebuttal. I think that's what it is.

Fake Person liked what Joyce Arthur wrote. Not sure what FP is saying in her post, but there are a lot of words on it.

Jonathon's subsequent response to Joyce Arthur.

By Jonathon Van Maren

In the wake of the murder of three people, including a pro-life pastor, and the injuring of nine others, Canada’s abortion activists are predictably falling all over themselves to assert that pro-lifers are “terrorists” by virtue of the fact that we highlight the legal killing of pre-born children. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada responded to my column on the shootings as an “incitement to violence” in and of itself, and the lovely Fern Hill, a pseudonymous blogger, wrote up a profile of the “typical pro-life terrorist” with similar accusations and her signature name-calling. Robyn Urback in the National Post accused GOP candidates who had the gall to mention that Planned Parenthood is guilty of all sorts of horrifying actions against pre-born children of being partially responsible for the murders, as well.

There’s a few things to note here. First of all, this marks the first time that many of Canada’s abortion activists and their media friends took any notice of the Planned Parenthood baby parts scandal at all, so there’s that. They only poked their heads over the battlements of their pro-abortion media bubble when they sensed the chance to lay corpses at the feet of those who tirelessly expose those being killed by the abortion industry.

Second of all, reading through these blog posts would be funny if the accusations were not so serious. It seems that the air-tight skulls of Fern Hill and the rest of the aging feminist vanguard simply cannot understand that some people do not think violence is the answer to everything. The pro-abortion worldview is one based on the very simple premise that violence—the physical destruction of a human being developing in the womb—is the answer to virtually every imaginable situation. Whether it be economic circumstances, a failing relationship, not feeling ready to parent, sexual assault, or medical difficulty, abortion is always the answer. So when a deranged recluse opens fire from a Planned Parenthood in Colorado—shooting, it must be said, without seeming to target anyone specifically—it’s understandable that they look at their ideological opponents in the abortion debate and assume that we’re taking a page out of their playbook.

They simply do not understand the pro-life view: For all their delusional babble about pro-lifers “hating women” (what about the nearly half of American women who are pro-life?), the pro-life movement is opposed, consistently, to using violence in any circumstance. We do not respond to inconvenience or disagreement with violence. That’s the modus operandi of the other side.

It’s interesting how the regular violence against pro-lifers on both sides of the border—including a knife attack at Life Chain in Toronto, pro-life activists getting punched, shoved, and otherwise assaulted by those of the pro-choice worldview, and even instances of pro-life activists getting shot—pass by without even a whisper from abortion activists. In many instances of violence, comments on social media indicate that they feel this is rather righteous blowback against those who dare to show pictures of abortion victims. There’s another irony—abortion is so grotesque and so violent, that according to abortion activists, even showing pictures of it constitutes violence—but for those exposing the deed rather than those committing the deed.

Pro-lifers are aware that the pro-“choice” movement is so desperate to project the violence of their worldview back on to the pro-life movement that they will blame us for virtually anything that they can, while ignoring any violence that doesn’t fit their semi-literate blog diagnoses of what we actually believe. That’s why when abortionist Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia got caught delivering babies alive and then snipping their spinal cords with scissors, the abortion movement promptly blamed pro-lifers, insisting that restrictive laws had forced Kermit to kill with scissors and run a seedy operation, while in fact a nice, clean, sterile clinic could have done the abortions if pro-life laws demanding such things hadn't stopped them. Regardless of innumerable stories of born-alive infants being killed after birth and a cadre of Kermits committing the deeds, abortion activists like Fern Hill, Joyce Arthur, and others happily look away—unless they can find some way to blame pro-lifers for the killing of infants that should have been aborted a few hours earlier, in the womb.

I’d like to make one final point, one already made eloquently by pro-life speaker Scott Klusendorf: Referring to abortion as “killing” is not “violent rhetoric.” It is actually just quoting the abortion industry itself. A few examples he cited:

Dr. Warren Hern, author of Abortion Practice, the medical text that teaches abortion procedures, told a Planned Parenthood conference: “We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denying an act of destruction. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

As far back as 1970, a candid editorial in California Medicine, a journal sympathetic to abortion, highlighted the use of deceptive language: “Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.”

Ronald Dworkin, in his book Life’s Dominion, says abortion deliberately kills a developing embryo and is a choice for death.

Faye Wattleton, former President of Planned Parenthood, told MS Magazine in 1997, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus” (“Speaking Frankly,” May/June 1997).

And hundreds more examples could be cited. Dr. Utah Landy, in the leaked Planned Parenthood footage, noting that abortion involved “dismembering the fetus” and laughing about when an eyeball dropped on her lap. Dr. Cassig Hammond saying in the same video that he knew one fetus could not have been born alive because “we crushed its skull.” Another abortionist openly admitting that abortion victim photos are real. “I actually have a different response when someone portrays those images,” she said. “Actually that’s my week…some weeks–and that’s what it looks like. Ignoring the fetus is a luxury of activists and advocates. If you’re a provider, you can’t ignore the fetus, right, because the fetus is your marker of how well – how good a job you did…Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing. Let’s just give them all that.”

This is violent language, yes. But what pro-lifers are doing is accurately quoting those in the abortion industry. This is not anti-abortion propaganda. It is pro-choice practicality. When pro-lifers are accused of “violent rhetoric” simply for accurately describing—in many cases quoting abortionists—what happens during the abortion procedure, you know that this procedure is truly grotesque.

That’s why the frenzied and hysterical accusations of abortion activists don’t bother me. They can call my colleagues and I “terrorists”—but at the end of the day, it’s simply because they cannot understand those who see violence as the problem, not the solution. 

CIHI releases 2014 abortion statistics

CIHI released their 2014 abortion statistics today. Like last year they are in Excel format.

2014 total abortions were 81,897 compared to 82,869 in 2013. But of course, as usual, clinic data is incomplete and still no abortions reported for doctor's offices and BC clinic data is also incomplete.

There were 540 clinic abortions reported in NB in 2013, but clinic data is absent for 2014.

In 2014 Newfoundland and Labrador reported 867 abortions, but in 2013 Newfoundland and Labrador's clinic abortions were absent.

From CIHI:

"Hospitals are mandated by their provincial/territorial ministry of health to report all hospital activity (not limited to abortions); therefore, coverage of abortions performed in Canadian hospitals can be considered complete. However, there is no such legislative requirement for clinics to report their activity (reporting is voluntary). For 2014, clinic data for British Columbia is incomplete, and clinic data for New Brunswick is absent."

Pro-abortions should stay true to facts

Today in the National Post Robyn Urback complains that pro-life people are being hard on Planned Parenthood. She says:

"Back in July, a series of controversial videos emerged purporting to show that Planned Parenthood was profiting of the sale of aborted fetal tissue, which is illegal, though the tapes actually went only so far as to confirm that the organization was being reimbursed for transport costs associated with donating tissue to medical research, which is legal."

It seems that like most "pro-choice" people, Ms.Urback probably never even bothered to watch the Planned Parenthood undercover videos. If she had, she would have been aware when there were negotiations between PP employees and the undercover person taking the videos, about the prices that would be charged for the fetal body parts. If the costs were truly only for transport costs, well then negotiations would not be needed would they? This is selling for profit pure and simple.

Ms. Urback also feels that calling Planned Parenthood an abortion factory is "morally disingenuous and utterly incorrect". Wow. Does she really believe that? What else does one call the systematic, repeated slaughter of children before they exit the womb if not an abortion factory? 

What is morally disingenuous is not only the killing of these children, but making a profit from it. Unfortunately there are far too many people of the "pro-choice" persuasion who simply can't see this. Or maybe they don't want to see it.

A pro-abortion's many factual inaccuracies

Fundamentalist pro-abortion Joyce Arthur believes that Anna Nienhuis' article, Censoring abortion statistics contains "factual inaccurac[ies]".

So let's look at Arthur's own factual inaccuracies from her own comments.

Factual inaccuracy number 1: Arthur thinks that groups like We Need a Law think that:

"fetuses deserve more human rights than grown women." 

Not true. Pro-life people believe that fetuses deserve the same human rights as grown women. That's because human fetuses are human beings. Therefore they have human rights. Just like grown women.

Factual inaccuracy number 2: Arthur says:

"It's quite remarkable to hear anti-choice people complaining about the BC and Ontario FOI regulations when their own movement is ultimately responsible for those regulations in the first place - they were enacted to protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence."

Since the Ontario government has never stated--even after repeatedly being asked--their reasons for hiding all abortion information, how can Arthur say it is to "protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence"? She can't. But that doesn't stop her from saying it. In fact in 2000, the Information and Privacy Commissioner actually ruled in favour of a pro-life group who was looking for abortion statistics but were denied the statistics from the Ministry of Health: the IPC found no evidence of violence:

"The information at issue in this appeal consists of general statistical information on a province-wide basis. This information cannot be linked to any individual facility or person involved in the provision of abortion services. I do not accept that the sequence of events, from disclosure to the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(e) and (i), could reasonably be expected to occur. While I accept the Ministry's submission, supported by ample evidence, that individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate have been subjected to threats, intimidation, and acts of violence, in my view, any link between disclosure and the harms in these sections is exaggerated. The evidence before me does not establish a reasonable expectation of endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, or to the security of a building, vehicle or system or procedure established for the protection of items within the meaning of sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Act.  

This finding is in keeping with a fundamental purpose of the Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry . . . Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable . . . [Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 403, per La Forest J. (dissenting on other grounds)]." 

In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."

Factual inaccuracy number 3: Arthur says:

"Judging by statements in this article and the goals of the "We Weed a Law" group, we can also be sure that the information will be used to lobby for restrictive laws and the removal of pregnant women's rights, on the basis of attacking and shaming them for having abortions for the "wrong" reasons."

The original article talks about how the BC and Ontario governments hide abortion statistics. Maybe Arthur didn't read the article and that's why she doesn't know this? There is nothing in the article, or in weneedalaws' stated goals anywhere, that have ever stated or implied they wish to attack or shame women. Arthur has manufactured these claims all by herself.

Factual inaccuracy number 4: Arthur says:

"Women do not need to state a reason for abortion, it's nobody's business, and making that mandatory would be a violation of privacy (and would fuel anti-choice misogyny). Such information could be useful of course, but it can be gathered in a study where subjects volunteer to participate and ethical guidelines are in place."

Arthur is not the only pro-abortion who perpetuates the myth of "anti-choice misogyny". This myth falls under the category of, if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it is true.

Factual inaccuracy number 5: Arthur says:

"There's a major factual inaccuracy in this article that basically destroys its credibility...Some stats can also be obtained from provincial ministries of health, including abortions done in doctors' offices or in unfunded clinics in Ontario."

Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does not provide any information about abortions done in doctors' offices in Ontario. In fact CIHI also doesn't report abortions done in doctor's offices.

Factual inaccuracy number 6: Arthur says:

"So the accusations of "censorship" are way overblown."

Considering that not only abortion statistics, but anything and everything relating to the word "abortion" in Ontario is completely excluded from freedom of information requests, Arthur's statement destroys her own credibility. In Ontario censorship on abortion information is very real indeed.

Factual inaccuracy number 7: Arthur says:

"Btw, you can be sure this data would NOT support anti-choice propaganda that abortion is dangerous or that women are having abortions right up to the moment of birth! Quite the opposite - so having this info would help our side, not theirs."

Arthur has nothing to back up any of her statement, again debunking any credibility she may have had. How do we know that abortion is not dangerous and how do we know that women aren't have abortions right up until birth, since none of this information is reported? The statistics we do have clearly show that in 2012 alone there were 62,178 abortions with no gestational ages at all. That means that all 62,178 of those abortions could very well be late term abortions. Since Arthur has no idea what these facts are how can she know it would help "her side"?

You can read more on Joyce Arthur's factual inaccuracies on abortion.

Infant of Prague - we pray for Justin Trudeau

While buying my Christmas stamps today--and I mean by that stamps that actually have a Christmas picture on them and not some red cup like Starbucks is doing this year--I met a lovely 81 year old Lebanese lady by the name of Alba.

She wanted to send a picture to Justin Trudeau. Her picture was neither packaged nor did she have the address of the House of Commons. Stephen the Canada Post clerk was trying to help her, but was slightly frustrated with her when I happened upon the scene.

I offered to him, that if he just wrote the House of Commons on the package (which he also had to provide, and graciously did so), and that if he had access to the internet, I was sure he could find the postal code. He did, and he even packaged it all up for Alba and wrote the requested address out for her.

Her picture also included a hand written note to Trudeau.

Alba was happy to talk to me about her gift to Trudeau. In her very broken English she told me that the picture was a photograph of an embroidery she had done when she was 23 (she couldn't remember what the name of the picture was, but my sister informed me that it was the Infant of Prague.)

"The devotion to the Holy Child Jesus has long been a tradition of the Catholic Church for a very long time. This devotion is a veneration of our Lord's sacred Infancy. Many saints had a very strong devotion to the Divine Child, notably St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua, and St. Teresa of Avila. 

Prague is the capitol city of the Czech Republic, which is at the very central of Europe with Germany, Poland, Russia and Austria as its neighbours. The history of the Infant Jesus of Prague started in the 17th century when a statue of the Infant Jesus was brought into Bohemia (now Czech Republic) and eventually was given to the Discalced Carmelites in Prague. Since then, the statue has remained in Prague and has drawn many devotees worldwide to go and honor the Holy Child. Many graces, blessings, favors and miraculous healings have been received by many who petitioned before the Infant Jesus."

Alba told me that the legend associated with the picture, was the more you gave Jesus, the more he would give you in return. From the link above for Catholic Culture:

"As the devotion to the Infant Jesus spreads throughout the world, many parishes now offer Holy Mass and novenas to honor the Holy Child of God and many prayer groups have been formed. Jesus has kept His promise that the more that He is honored, the more that He will bless them. This is truly evidenced by the many favors He has granted to those who ask Him."

She also had pictures of the original photograph that she used to create the embroidery (see picture below). And she told me when she first saw the picture it reminded her of her sister who died at the age of two. That is why she felt compelled to embroider it back when she was 23. Now she wanted to share this very personal memory with Justin Trudeau.

Considering Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion edict against pro-life persons, I think this gift is very fitting. I just hope Trudeau has the good sense to put it on his desk.

Pro-choice doctors want reporting of abortion services

Dear Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins,

I think you should read Monday's National Post, Censoring abortion statistics.

The article addresses what the Ontario Government is doing in Ontario: hiding abortion statistics:

"Despite abortion being a fully funded medical procedure, it is the only medical procedure where hospitals and clinics do not have to report statistics. This matters because transparency matters and, despite what governments and some media may tell you, Canadians are not united on the issue of abortion. In fact, up to 92 per cent of Canadians think there should be some restrictions on abortion, whether to eliminate late-term abortions, sex-selective abortions or other human rights violations."

According to (pro-choice) Canadian medical health researchers, Dr. Margaret A. Burnett and Dr. Jeanelle N. Sabourin,

“there is inconsistent and inadequate reporting of prevalence and complication rates of abortions in Canada, and improved reporting is necessary for quality assurance and to ensure safety.”
(M. A. Burnett and J. N. Sabourin, “A Review of Therapeutic Abortions and Related Areas of Concern in Canada,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34, no. 6 (2012): 539.)

Clearly it's not only pro-life persons who care about abortion related information. Pro-choice doctors want it as well.

So why the censorship Mr. Hoskins?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Justin Trudeau needs to read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ON NATIONAL CHILD DAY

Ottawa, Ontario 

20 November 2015 

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today on National Child Day:
“I think that one of the most rewarding things about being Prime Minister of Canada is having the ability to make a real difference in the lives of children in our own country and around the world.  

“Each child deserves to be raised in a world free of discrimination, violence, and exploitation, and each one deserves to grow up with proper nutrition and health care, a good education, and safe communities. (emphasis added)

“As we look back exactly 26 years to when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for signature, we can see that real progress has been made in moving the markers forward for young people around the globe. But there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, from reducing preventable diseases to feeding the undernourished, from freeing those being forced to do child labour to ending child, early, and forced marriage, and from rehabilitating former child soldiers to sheltering the millions displaced as a result of conflicts and hunger..."

Has Justin Trudeau read the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? If he had he would have also read this statement:

"...Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

And Canada signed this treaty.

It's all about human rights, Mr. Prime Minister. For the child before as well as after birth. Don't you get that?

ARCC - promotes discrimination, Charter rights violations, and political interference

This is just pathetic. But sadly, not unexpected:

"The ARCC [Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada] wants more surgical time for abortions in rural hospitals, elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors, screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school, full funding for pharmaceutical abortion through so-called “emergency contraceptives,” and withholding of  federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions."

Sounds like a big fat wad of discrimination, provincial political interference, and downright stick-your-nose-where-it-doesn't-belongedness to me.

"elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors"?
Since Arthur only wants this for only pro-life doctors, I assume she's fine for a "pro-choice" doctor to be allowed to conscientiously object to something he/she believes is immoral, unethical, and deadly? Just not a pro-life doctor. This is both discrimination and goes against a doctor's Charter right of freedom of conscience.

"screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school"?
Again Arthur wants to discriminate against pro-life doctors.

Arthur would also like to see the feds interfere in provincial health care with "full funding" for "emergency contraceptives"? That's none of the feds business though. But you already know that Joyce, don't you?

"withholding of federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions"? 
Again, none of the feds business and up to the provinces to decide.

Joyce Arthur just can't get our of her own way of her any-time-any-where, pro-abortion ideology.

Ontario PCs - hold Liberals to account for hidden agenda

Dear Monte [McNaughton],

I received your letter in the mail asking me for a donation to your [Progressive Conservative] party. I might consider giving the party a donation, if your party would stand up in the House and ask the question I asked Patrick Brown below (to which I never received a response). And, if your party would actively advocate and make an issue of this undemocratic, secretive law. 

If and when I hear that the PC Party is actively engaged on this issue, and holding the Liberals to account for their secret agenda on this, please contact me again.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Liberals hiding medical information
To: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
Cc: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>

Dear Patrick,

Congratulations on your recent victory for your seat in the Ontario Legislature.

As you know I am taking the Ontario government to court with my Charter Challenge.

Could you ask Kathleen Wynne a question during question period about their hiding information about a tax-funded medical procedure (abortion), and why they did it without a word of debate in the legislature?

I have asked Kathleen and the then Minister Deb Matthews for their reasons for this, and they have continually refused to answer me.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

Justin Trudeau's Liberal cabinet is not inclusive

How ironic that the media is talking about a diverse cabinet from Justin Trudeau. I could never be a member of Trudeau's cabinet. I could never be an MP in his caucus. Neither could any of my pro-life friends.

There will be no representative in that cabinet for either myself; for my pro-life colleagues; or the for unborn people who will never be born. There is no-one in that cabinet to represent any of us.

We used to discriminate against women. Now we discriminate against pro-lifers.

A big tent party? I don't think so.

Thomas Mulcair: please don't quit, we need you

Chris Selley thinks Thomas Mulcair is the man to hold Justin Trudeau to account for all his election promises:

"They have, after all, pledged to “save home mail delivery”; to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by year’s end; to modify anti-terror laws in a way that satisfies civil libertarians and to implement more robust national security oversight; to ditch the F-35s and find cheaper fighter jets somewhere; to legalize and regulate marijuana; to table electoral reform legislation within 18 months; to restore the retirement age to 65; to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures; to appoint an advertising commissioner to decide whether government ads are partisan; to “establish an independent commission to organize leaders’ debates”; to reform Senate and Supreme Court appointments; to allow MPs free votes on everything except platform items, “traditional confidence matters” and matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”; to alter the House of Commons’ standing orders to prohibit mammoth omnibus bills; to empower and enrich the Parliamentary Budget Office and to extend its purview to parties’ election platforms; to make government accounting “consistent and clear”; to restore the mandatory long-form census; to establish “a pan-Canadian framework for combating climate change” within 90 days of the Paris conference; to “renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations”; and to “enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which at the federal level means calling an inquiry into missing and murdered women, adopting and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “eliminating the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in custody over the next decade,” closing the aboriginal educational achievement gap in a single generation, building a Residential Schools National Monument in Ottawa, “restoring and increasing” funding for CBC, statutorily exempting criminals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome from all mandatory minimum sentences, having new citizens swear observance to treaties with indigenous peoples and outlawing spanking."

Good idea.

Notice this promise:

"And matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”

Mr. Trudeau thinks of course that abortion is a shared value and is protected by the Charter--untrue and untrue. See here and here.

And this one:

"to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures"

I look forward to this promise. I remember when Harper said something smilar with his Federal Accountability Act, which of course didn't amount to a hill of beans. Let's hope Trudeau does a better job of it. We'll be watching.

Justin Trudeau and pro-life Canadians

With Trudeau’s election, things are about to get very personal for pro-life Canadians

By Jonathon van Maren

The columns dissecting Prime Minister-Designate Justin Trudeau’s landslide victory last Monday are already coming in fast and furious. I’ve even written one or two myself. But for the pro-life movement, Trudeau’s victory demands some introspection on what we can do moving forward. I think four things are essential to consider.

1. Politics and law are downstream from culture. Sewage flows downhill. The work of actually engaging people in conversations, going door-to-door, changing their minds—that is the only way we will ensure that pro-life principles become entrenched in our country. We really have no right to be shocked when Canada’s Supreme Court tosses out our euthanasia laws when there has been no concerted effort at the grassroots level to stem the tide of public opinion flowing in that direction for years. We are not going to affect any real change on the abortion issue from inside offices or churches, and we are not going to transform public opinion by spending all of our time talking to other pro-life people. To change public policy, you need to change public opinion, and to change public opinion, you have to actually engage with the public. Whether or not your pro-life work is a success is directly correlated to how many people you manage to persuade to become pro-life. Our standards for “pro-life work” are often far too low.

2. Most people don’t vote on the abortion issue, and that’s one reason Justin Trudeau won so big Monday night. Areas of the country that polling data tell us have strong anti-abortion sentiment were still swept up in the crimson tide—there’s a metaphor in there somewhere—in spite of the fact that Justin Trudeau is the most pro-abortion politician to ever be elected to high office. Pro-lifers are often fond of saying that over 60% of Canadians want an abortion law. That’s not quite true. If 60% of Canadians actually wanted something, you can be assured that they would get it. It’s the same with sex-selection abortion, which over 90% of Canadians profess to oppose—but when Stephen Harper shut down the debate around that issue in the House of Commons, there was nary a whisper from Canadians. Just because they agree in some languid, lackadaisical fashion that perhaps, at some point, we should stop dismembering full-term babies, doesn’t mean they actually care—and certainly doesn’t mean they’ll actually take that belief into the polling booth with them on Election Day. In order for these issues to actually impact our politicians, the voter intensity on abortion needs to be radically changed.

3. To create a new pro-life consensus, we have to look outside of our own communities. Bluntly put, there aren’t enough orthodox Catholics and Protestants in the country to form a big enough voting bloc on the issue. However, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and even Buddhists are very kindly disposed to the pro-life position. These are the people protesting Premier Kathleen Wynne’s radical sex education and these are the people who respond most positively to pro-life outreach. And on Monday, they turned out in droves for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. In order to create a voting bloc that is resolutely pro-life, we will need to do much work with those whose own cultural and religious values are hostile to abortion as well as other social policies that Trudeau and his ilk hold dear. We may not agree on everything, but as Francis Schaeffer liked to say, we are still co-belligerents.

4. The Christian community will now actually have to step up and get involved, because things are about to get very personal. One of the reasons Christians so successfully ignore issues like abortion is that they assume that for the most part, it won’t have much impact on them personally. With the legalization of euthanasia coming and an already-strained healthcare system facing an aging population, life will now be threatened at both ends of the spectrum. Many Christians—I heard this dozens of times—insisted that Stephen Harper was “secretly pro-life,” as if there is any such thing. I suspect more Christians, for the sake of convenience, believed the Liberal “hidden agenda” babble than did Liberals themselves. With Trudeau the Younger firmly entrenched in power for at least the next four years, Christians are going to have to abandon the complacency that helped this happen and fight for their country. We need less poodles and more pit bulls.

For almost ten years, many Christians and pro-lifers comforted themselves with the fact that at least, things wouldn’t get worse. Now, they very much can. If Trudeau has his way, they very much will. It is up to the pro-life movement and to the churches to serve as the conscience of the nation, and maintain a relentless opposition to Trudeau’s policies. It will be hard work, but this time, no one can be absent without leave.

Abortion: doesn't protect children

Paul Lauzon took this video at the Ottawa abortion clinic at 65 Bank St. in Ottawa. It's how we dispose of aborted children in Canada. In plastic pails hauled off in the back of a truck. This is what is on the truck: "Stericycle Protecting People. Reducing Risk."

Kind of ironic. Abortion does anything but protecting and reducing the risk to very small people.

Where does Stericycle go and what is done with the remains of these slaughtered children? Unknown.

Sleeping all cozy in their warm comfy womb

I just watched the 11th undercover video of Planned Parenthood America. This video basically describes a partial birth abortion:

"[Dr. Amna] Dermish does not use the chemical digoxin to kill the unborn baby before 20 weeks because the chemical results in destroying too much of the baby’s body to salvage to sell for body parts. As a result Dermish relies on feet-first, intact extraction abortions done on living unborn babies. Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the baby from vertex to breech orientation before extracting the yet-living fetus is a hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure that Congress banned years ago."

The question I have is this. How do these people, who can so nonchalantly make jokes while discussing the torture and dismemberment of pre-born children who feel pain, sleep at night?

In fact, imagine an abortion doctor peacefully sleeping in their cozy warm bed after a hard day of work ripping babies apart. And imagine a cold sterile vice reaching into that cozy warm bed, to first rip off one leg, then the other leg. And imagine the vice then grabbing on to the doctor's torso and pulling it through an opening smaller than the diameter of the doctor's body. I wonder if the doctor would still be laughing?

(check out the video at 9:30 to hear Dr. Dermish discuss extracting the baby: lower extremities first, then the spine/trunk)

Comforting those affected by abortion

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicnews/2015/10/with-a-childs-touch-sculpture-seeks-to-comfort-those-who-mourn-abortion/

"The statue portrays a suffering mother in imitation stone. She is grieving with her face buried in her hands. She is approached by her aborted baby, depicted in a young child’s transparent form. The child reaches up to touch the woman’s head in a tender gesture of forgiveness and healing."

If ABC link is real why suppress the risks?

Barbara Kay: Tough questions on the health risks of abortion remain

October 23, 2015
(reprinted with permission from the author)

October is International Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Upcoming, November is International Preterm Birth Awareness Month. “Uh oh,” I can almost hear certain pro-choice stakeholders muttering: “Is she actually going there?” Yep. Fasten your seat belts, readers. Like they say in those corny action movies, “I’m going in!”

“In” is the political war zone of Induced Abortion (IA) research in which the contested territory are the links between IA with i) future preterm birth and ii) elevated rates of breast cancer (known as ABC). The links are there. Nations that proscribe abortion have low premature-birth rates and low breast cancer rates. Nations with high abortion rates have high rates of premature birth and breast cancer. But are the links causal or coincidental? An army of pro-choice obstetricians and gynecologists and their supporting institutions deny causality. A battalion of (both pro-life and pro-choice) researchers and epidemiologists producing reams of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies insist on causality.

Full disclosure: I have no personal dog in this hunt (never had an abortion or miscarriage or preterm birth myself, or breast cancer). My views on abortion are not dictated by religious belief. Politically I’m neither pro-life nor pro-choice. Like the majority of Canadians I believe in regulation. Sex selection abortion, for example, really disgusts me, but even pragmatically speaking, we need regulation so we can collect the data we need for research. One thing I don’t believe is that the science on any reproductive intervention on a woman’s body — IA, IVF, surrogacy or whatever — is “settled.”

My “ideology” is therefore pro-scientific research that is untainted by political correctness, and pro-informed consent. But our culture can’t seem to get beyond the “rights” aspect of abortion into the “data” aspect. Ambiguity around what is promoted as a risk-free surgery can dampen women’s confidence, obviously. But if the risks actually exist, what benefit to women is there in suppressing knowledge of it?

That is the main point I make as an interviewee in a new documentary film that just premiered in Los Angeles. “Hush” is dedicated to exploring the effects of internal politics on scientific inquiry into women’s reproductive health. To be more precise, the politics that kick in on one issue only: abortion. It’s actually kind of weird: There is no controversy surrounding the elevated breast cancer risks causally linked with childlessness, late-start pregnancy, early menstruation, the Pill and hormone replacement therapy. All these causes, known because of continuing research, have one thing in common — estrogen proliferation. But suggest a causal link between estrogen-proliferative IA and breast cancer — and watch the fur fly!

The film’s director, Punam Kumar Gill, a respected member of the arts community and a Chatelaine nominee for “woman of the year” has served as writer, director and producer on seven documentary films to date. She brings a deft combination of personal motivation and investigative acumen to her task.

Gill, who considers herself a “product of feminism,” had always assumed IA was safe and without harmful effects. That changed some years ago, when the sudden onset of pre-eclampsia in her second trimester of pregnancy resulted in the spontaneous abortion of her baby. When she attempted to gather information on possible health consequences, Gill encountered resistance amongst health professionals to discussion of any risks. She was further troubled by the bromides set out by health organizations on their websites, as well as by the disparity in public policies around informed consent in different jurisdictions. In Canada and many states, as the film notes, abortion seekers are given no routine pre-surgery counselling, while 35 states mandate pre-abortion counselling, 25 cite IA-linked fertility risks, and five cite the potential ABC link.

What you will mainly see in Hush, apart from graphically illuminated revelations of research suppression amongst health organizations, notably the National Cancer Institute, is Gill talking to people, including amongst others: women whose abortions resulted in physical and psychological complications they were not advised might happen; an internationally prominent gynecologist who denies that IA involves any significant consequences whatsoever, and who considers continued research unnecessary; a breast surgical oncologist disturbed by her growing roster of patients with aggressive breast cancer in the 25-39 cohort, many with a history of IA; and a statistician studying eight European-Scandinavian countries who finds IA “to be the best predictor of breast cancer.”

Women’s reproductive health issues are the third rail of the medical profession. I rarely see an objective news article on abortion, fertility or female cancers that is not immediately either attacked or defended from a politicized perspective, rather than simply assessed on its own terms. I think Hush, which seems to me an objective overview of the situation, should be seen by pro-choice women, pro-life women and women who are simply concerned about themselves or their daughters achieving their reproductive goals with optimal chances for long-term health. That is to say, by pretty well all women.

Justin Trudeau and Catholics

This story from Catholic Culture is making the rounds. It says that Archbishop Prendergast will be meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau regarding his abortion stand.

But if you go to the source for the story, it appears that it is based on a LifeSiteNews article from June, 2014, and so it seems not to be current.

Many Catholics are concerned about Mr. Trudeau's election to become Canada's Prime Minister. Not only because of his pro-abortion ideology, but because many other Catholics voted for him.

If Catholics voted for Trudeau, we must ask ourselves--are they okay with his pro-abortion ideology? Or are Catholics ignorant of Trudeau's pro-abortion ideology? Or do they believe as Trudeau, does that one can separate their private beliefs from their public beliefs?

All very troubling questions.

I hope that Archbishop Prendergast will indeed speak once again with Mr. Trudeau. (The Archbishop did speak to him in 2014.)

Nobody can be both Catholic and pro-choice because these are mutually exclusive.

Pro-life people - do not be discouraged

Justin Trudeau - what were Catholics thinking?

So we got what we deserve I guess. A liberal government headed up by the most pro-abortion leader Canada has ever known, Justin Trudeau. We voted for him, and we got him.

Canada has 13.07 million baptized Catholics.

And Here in Ottawa Vanier Mauril Belanger got over 43% of the vote. Shameful considering there are a ton of Catholic Francophones in Vanier.

I hope they all went to confession today.

A just society must protect the right to life for all humans

Fr. Yves included this in his homily today, regarding voting tomorrow:

"We must be informed by our Christian faith...respect for life and human dignity from conception to natural death. Any candidate or party that opposes that fundamental right cannot serve us to build a truly just society. It's the first of rights, the right to life of the unborn in the womb. If that right is opposed, it is violated, and we cannot build a just society."

Catholics wake up to Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion agenda (the series)

I know of Catholics who will vote for Justin Trudeau. I know of Catholics who are unaware of his pro-abortion ideology. Unbelievable but true.

Now we hear that Justin Trudeau wants Canadians to fund abortions overseas as part of the Maternal, newborn and child health initiative.

This is just one more attack on the sanctity of human life, brought to you by the most pro-abortion leader Canadians have ever known.

We already know that Justin Trudeau won't let pro-life people be part of the Liberal party. Not unless they agree to park their pro-life consciences at the door. He even uses his Catholic faith as some kind of perverse justification for his pro-abortion stand:

“As someone who was raised Roman Catholic, and who attended a Jesuit school, I understand that it is difficult for people of deep faith to set their beliefs aside in order to serve Canadians who may not share those beliefs.” (From Justin Trudeau's book Common Ground)

Jonathon Van Maren says this about Trudeau:

"Justin’s comments on the Catholic Church throughout his memoir betray the fact that he is about as Catholic as the rest of Quebec—which is to say, not at all. He appreciates the spirituality, the historicity, the tradition—but not the irritating moral obligations, such as the obligation to protect all human life or the recognition of natural law. He is counting on the fact that most voters—and many Catholics—will not examine his claims too closely, and thus he will don the cultural garb of Catholicism without any of the restraints."

Justin Trudeau also thinks the Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes a right to abortion. It doesn't.

Justin Trudeau also thinks the Canada Health Act includes abortion. It doesn't. See here.

Wake up people. A vote for Justin Trudeau is a vote for a pro-abortion agenda.

(To know more about Justin Trudeau and his pro-abortion agenda, the following links will take you all to my blog posts on the Liberal leader. Note that each page has multiple blog postings:)
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/search/label/Justin%20Trudeau
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/search/label/Justin%20Trudeau?updated-max=2015-07-23T16:52:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=20&by-date=false
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/search/label/Justin%20Trudeau?updated-max=2014-09-19T07:38:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=40&by-date=false

What Catholics/Christians should know about Justin Trudeau before they vote

It still surprises me how so few Catholics know the truth about Justin Trudeau.

Last year a reader of my blog sent me a copy of a letter they wrote to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, regarding his decree that pro-life persons would be disqualified from becoming Liberal candidates. The letter deserves a re-read as we are about to possibly elect a Liberal Government.

Mr. Trudeau never responded to the letter. Which doesn't surprise me since he's never bothered to answer my letter either.

What on earth is Canada thinking anyway?

Novena to St. Joseph for the election

I received this from someone this past week. What a great idea for a Novena to St. Joseph. It should have started yesterday for the nine days, but I'm sure God will understand if you only start it today.

The Federal election is in less than 3 weeks! It is only my opinion, but I think it would be a good idea at this time to pray for our beautiful country. Since voting day this year happens to be exactly one week after our Thanksgiving Holiday, let’s remember the blessings that God has bestowed on us, and ask His help in obtaining the best possible outcome.

To my fellow Catholics, I would even suggest: Why not a novena to St-Joseph, who was chosen as early as the 17th century, by Saint Mgr. de Laval, as the Patron Saint of Canada? Below is a prayer that I have tried to write for this purpose, and I would suggest to try to say this prayer on each of the 9 days preceding voting day (beginning on the Saturday before Thanksgiving), followed by the Lord's Prayer, and/or one decade or all of a Rosary, whatever you are comfortable with.

Prayer to St. Joseph

For a blessing on this year's Federal Elections

O Saint Joseph, loving father, faithful guardian of Jesus and spouse of the Mother of God, we pray you to remind God the Father of all the love He has shown for us in offering up the death and resurrection of His Son to give us life.

Our beautiful country, Canada, has been consecrated to you from its very beginnings. Just as Mary and Jesus recognized in you the protector given to them by the Father, so too we are placing ourselves under your protection.

We humbly ask you to intercede through the power of Jesus, and obtain for us from the eternal Father the grace to choose the best possible team of men and women to lead our country, men and women who will be true leaders, who are not going to be in government for their own ego, personal advantage, or agenda, but who are going to see themselves as servants of society and will focus on the common good, while working as wise stewards of the riches of our country, in harmony with God's design.

Amen

Justin Trudeau doesn't understand the Canada Health Act

In this "up for debate" interview with Justin Trudeau, the interviewer asks a question--based on a falsehood--and Trudeau just as sweet as can be, goes along with it. Either Trudeau knows it is false and doesn't correct the interviewer which is a scary thought, or he doesn't know it's false which is even a scarier thought.

Check out page 8 where Trudeau is asked about the Canada Health Act and how it requires abortion to be funded (the CHA does no such thing), and Justin says if he's elected he will have a conversation with any jurisdiction not living up to their responsibilities under the CHA:

FP: Another question which does not get much air time because it’s a question that is seen as something that was settled 30 years ago and I’m talking about reproductive rights, abortion. The Canada Health Act stipulates that every Canadian woman has a right to a free, accessible abortion without conditions. That is not being applied right now. PEI, a Liberal government, has turned away from its obligations. What are you prepared to do about that?

JT: I had a conversation with the Premier about this just a few months ago. The fact is they have moved in the right direction, made a significant change. There is no a 2 doctor rule around that. But you’re right, there are presently no abortions offered on the island of Prince Edward Island. And I certainly hope that that’s going to change. Because it’s important that we make sure that full medical access to reproductive services are available to every woman across this country. And that is something that the Liberal Party is engaged in. 

Dear Justin: Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Canada's shame: Leaders refuse to protect pre-born children

Mike Schouten in today's National Post:

"Justin Trudeau’s attempt to play wedge politics with the abortion issue fell flat at last week’s French language debate. This must have been disappointing for him as his position has been clear for some time: he supports every form of abortion — including for the sole purpose of terminating the lives of girl babies simply because they are female — at every stage of pregnancy. He even issued an edict stating that anyone who questioned the status quo was not welcome in the Liberal party. 

The de facto position of Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper is, in principle, no different. When questioned directly by Trudeau last Friday, Harper said the same as he has been saying for years, “My position for 10 years has been I don’t intend to re-open this debate...”

...In effect Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau all support sex-selective abortion. They care less about the fact that girls are targeted for abortion much more frequently than boys. Their refusal to act is a sign that they endorse this misogynistic practice in Canada. 

All three leaders also support late-term abortion. They show no regard for the reality that every year thousands of babies lose their lives by being aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy, after the stage when children of the same age are born, survive outside of the womb, and live productive lives as Canadian citizens..."

Mauril Belanger - assisted suicide and applause

There was another thing that came out of last night's debate. Mauril Belanger said:

"I have always voted for assisted suicide, never euthanasia. I will never support that."

What was depressing, was the big round of applause Belanger got for his support for assisted suicide.

We used to say it was tragic when someone committed suicide. Now we clap our hands.

Ottawa-Vanier - splitting the left vote

Interesting debate last night at Colonel By high school for Ottawa-Vanier candidates. I thought all the candidates did fairly well. Not too sure though about the Marxist-Leninist candidate, couldn't quite understand him and his thoughts weren't overly coherent.

There were a lot of the left leaning persuasion persons in the room and they seemed to applaud a lot for the NDP, Liberals, and Green parties. But it definitely wasn't a crowning of Belanger as I had feared.

There was some disruptive laughing/snickering/rudeness going on when Conservative David Piccini was speaking about how his party is allowed to vote with their conscience. I know that Harper controls his MPs pretty tightly, but really? Isn't it both the Liberals and NDP who don't even allow people into their party who are pro-life (and so never even get to vote their conscience) and NOT the Conservatives?

My take away from the debate is that I found the NDP and Green candidates were both quite strong, especially the NDP's Emilie Taman. Hopefully this will translate into taking away votes from Liberal Mauril Belanger who is well past his best before date.