RU-486 is a bad idea

We should be very cautious about approving the abortion drug RU-486 in Canada. There are health concerns about this drug, and this alone should cause us grave concern. But what about our democratic rights? As Mike Schouten at weneedalaw.ca says:

"The Conservative government along with all the political parties in Ottawa have denounced any attempts at debating abortion in the House of Commons. That Health Canada could approve RU-486 through the proverbial backdoor is contrary to democratic principles that should allow for an abortion discussion"

And speaking about democracy (or lack there of) what about the fact that in Ontario right now, no person can do a Freedom of Information request on anything related to abortion services?

This would mean that any and all information (in Ontario) regarding this new drug, like how many abortions occurred using the drug, what complications women are experiencing from the drug, how many deaths are attributable to it, etc. would now be completely hidden from us.

Since most abortions in Canada are done in Ontario, and if RU-486 is approved, we can extrapolate that most of the RU-486 abortions will also be done in Ontario. And because everything related to abortion is now hidden in Ontario, any complications, how many prescriptions doctor's write, etc.--all will be hidden under a cloak of secrecy. By allowing RU-486, the federal government will be just exacerbating the abortion cover-up in provinces like Ontario (and BC to a certain extent as well).

In Ontario, in 2010 there were at least 44,000 abortions performed in Ontario. That's 53% more than officially reported by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) (CIHI only reported 28,765). 

CIHI already does not report medical abortions, as well as abortions done in doctor's offices. And now with RU-486, none of those abortions will be reported either.

Women will be getting more and more access to abortion, while we get less and less information about these abortions. This is a deadly combination for women.

The other grave concern we should have with RU-486 for the women taking it, is for those women who may live in remote areas of the country, and/or places where abortions are not currently available.

In this article by the CBC, Dawn Fowler, the Canadian director of the National Abortion Federation, says it can take a day or two for women in rural and remote communities to travel to a bigger centre to have an abortion. She says that this is "about delivering safe, quality care". 

Yet in remote parts of our country, like reservations, there are very good reasons why this drug should not be made available to women because it won't be safe. If a women has a serious problem while taking this new drug, and if she is in need of expert medical care to treat her for that problem, that care may not be readily available to her in these remote or unserviced places, putting the women at great personal risk.

We already know that--contrary to what abortion advocates like to tell us--abortion is already not safe. Many say that abortion complication rates are less than 1%. Yet Echo, an Ontario government "pro-choice" agency, informs us that complication rates for abortions are actually between 6.95% and7.70%:

NDP MP Libby Davies says approving RU-486 is important to a lot of women who do not have access to reproductive choice. My goodness, Ms. Davies is a woman and a Member of Parliament. Surely she can get out of the way of her own ideology to see the potential danger this drug can have on women.

With this kind of advocacy for this deadly drug coming from the powerful National Abortion Federation, and from the ideological NDP, women's health will take a back seat to the abortion industry's and pharmaceuticals' profits.

RU-486 is bad for all of us. This drug should not be approved.

How Canadians can ban late-term abortions

LiveAction goes undercover again, this time in America's late-term abortion industry.

Notice how the abortion doctor continually calls the unborn child "the pregnancy". And she seems to have no problem in going ahead and aborting the 27 week old baby.



But there is something else noteworthy in this video. It is that two congresswomen stand up and speak out very openly and forcefully against abortion.

Republican Diane Black says:

"there is undisputed scientific evidence that babies over 20 weeks and over gestation can feel pain and that late-term abortion can impose severe health risks also for the mother...There is no federal law to protect pain capable unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions."

Republican Ann Wagner says:

"Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no-one discusses the implications of that choice."

Those are two gutsy women.

Why do we so infrequently have Canadian MPs speaking out against late-term abortion? Is it because our Prime Minister muzzles them? Is it because the pro-abortions will draw and quarter them? Or is it both these reasons?

We know what happened when Rona Ambrose spoke out in favour of Motion 312.

NDP MP Libies Davies actually said that Ms. Ambrose "betrayed the women of this country."

And Joyce Arthur said Ms. Ambrose "threw women under the bus".

One can easily see why our pro-life MPs (especially female ones) are very reticent in speaking out for women and their pre-born children. They know as soon as they say anything on the subject, they will be publicly humiliated by these extreme feminists.

Motion 312 was a Motion to call for a Parliamentary committee to study when a child becomes a human being. What part of that Motion exactly, betrays women and throws them under the bus I ask you?

Between 60 and 77% of Canadians believe late-term abortions should be banned.

There isn't a whole lot we can do about pro-abortion extremists except ignore them.

But there is something we can do about Mr. Harper.

It's time for the Conservatives to call a leadership review.

When some women think they speak for all women

There is a funny thing that goes on in this country, where the so-called feminists think they speak for all women, when clearly they don't, but that doesn't stop them from saying they do, and really, you know, it gets kind of boring.

So, Like Naomi Lakritz, who does a fine piece on  MP Rona Ambrose, I also:
"didn't ask [NDP deputy leader Libby] Davies to speak on my behalf, and I don't feel betrayed in any way, so I don't appreciate being lumped into the grey bloc conveniently labelled "Canadian women."

I am a Canadian woman and those women do not speak for me now, they didn't speak for me before, and they definitely won't speak for me later. They simply do not have a corner on speaking for Canadian women.

So please. Can you do us all a favour? Get over yourselves.