Archbishop Prendergast advocates helping pregnant women and placing restrictions on abortion

(Parliament Hill at the Annual March for Life May 13, 2010)

Here is a transcript of Archbishop Prendergast being interviewed by CJOH's Graham Richardson at the following link: click on "Archbishop of Ottawa talks about abortion"

Interviewer:
Well the Archbishop of Ottawa Terrance Prendergast has been blunt about a topic that many politicians simply aren’t talking about: abortion. The Catholic Church opposes abortion even in the cases of rape but Prendergast is spending less time trying to change the law focusing instead on trying to bring the number of abortions performed in Canada every year down.

The Archbishop:
I think we need to look at the issue of how many abortions there are in our country and so Cardinal Ouellet and I last week took the tact of saying, look alright we aren’t going to change the law at present anyway, so let’s do something about reducing the number. If everyone says there should be as few abortions as possible, what are we doing for that? Why are we happy that the number is staying more or less static? You know in a country like this? The Cardinal gave the statistics that with 10,000,000 people in Belgium, they have fewer abortions than they have in Quebec where they have 8,000,000 people. Why is that? Who would not be opposed to reducing the number of abortions? I don't think anybody.

I mean the other side says that we should preserve the right of a woman to choose ok? And we say well we would like to restrict the number of abortions period but shouldn’t we all be trying to reduce the number of abortions and to help the women who actually would keep the child and bring it to term if they had the resources and support? That’s really what I am underlining right now. It’s a chance to break through the impasse and to go a different way.

Interviewer:
You seem to be inside a pro-life belief, talking about other things other than the law, other than changing the law.

The Archbishop:
Well we would like to change the law, I would like to change the law and at least put some restrictions on it at least something like you have in Belgium where after the first trimester there aren’t any abortions or generally there aren’t any.

The Interviewer said that Archbishop Prendergast says that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is reluctant to even talk about the abortion issue.

The Archbishop:
He [PM Harper] says I don’t normally comment on Private member’s Bills. This is the man who espouses the right of private members to bring forth bills. I find that ironic. But that’s another side but now he [PM Harper] says.

I don’t want to comment on this but now I want to comment why because abortion is this hot potato that nobody wants to handle and everybody thinks it’s a hidden agenda item for Mr. Harper. So I say well OK given the climate we are in let’s see what we can do about helping women in difficulty, and also not just woman but also the men who are there because the men are the silent partners who in some cases don’t take responsibility for their actions.

Woman the barricades

Look out. Lysiane Gagnon says that Quebecers will be at the barricades to protect Canada's any-time any-reason no-reason abortion freedoms if
"In the very unlikely event the Harper government would be foolish enough to raise the issue of abortion in the Commons."

Sounds like a threat to me.

Ms. Gagnon sounds pretty self-righteously confident. What, with "consensus" from Jean Charest and his National Assembly on abortion, which, don't you know, apparently mirrors Quebec's consensus on abortion (any Quebecers out there like to speak up for themselves?), AND the pillorying of Montreal's Cardinal Marc Ouellet for his brave and principled stand against abortion, Ms. Gagnon does a pretty good stand-up "I am woman hear me roar" primal scream.

But I don't understand this statement:
"Indeed, it’s hardly surprising that a Catholic bishop would condemn abortion. If someone thinks human life starts at conception, then of course he will see abortion as murder whatever the circumstances."

Ms. Gagnon, did you just say what I think you just said? If human life begins at conception then abortion is murder? I don't want to put words in your mouth but does this mean you don't believe human life begins at conception? That maybe it begins at say, 36?

Well no need to argue. Since Science tells us that human life does begin at conception, I guess that's when human life begins and I guess the Cardinal was right after all.

The she says:
"The large majority of practising Catholics are in favour of access to abortion, at least during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy".

Hold the phone please. Stop the presses. Back up. "Practising Catholics" means you practise the Catholic religion. To practise the Catholic religion, you must adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine is against abortion. Got it?

And then we cap the whole thing off with the other end of the bookend, with that threat thing again:
"No government that wants to get re-elected would dare touch the explosive issue of abortion – at least when it concerns Canadian women. The foreign women to whom the Harper government is refusing to fund access to safe abortions don’t vote here, so there is no political cost in denying them a right granted to Canadian women two decades ago. How illogical! And what a scandal it is."

Well, let me see. I am a woman. I am a Canadian woman. I would re-elect the Harper government in a nano-second if Mr. Harper were to "touch the explosive abortion debate". And I would be joined by at least another few million Canadian women.

Sorry Ms. Gagnon, your paternalistic dogma doesn't work for me.

Bishops confirm abortion debate is on

This week Montreal's Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Ottawa's Archbishop Terrence Prendergast spoke out calling for a new abortion debate

Yesterday Charles Lewis said:
"Two senior Catholic Church officials did something remarkable this week, though it barely got noticed and chances are it will easily be forgotten or written off as some weird “Catholic thing” irrelevant to the rest of society. They proposed a way to re-frame the discussion about abortion and it would be to the benefit of many to pay attention to what they had to say before dismissing them because they wear clerical garb...Cardinal Ouellet first acknowledged on Wednesday that we now live in the midst of a “political and legal impasse” when it comes to the abortion debate...

"I am launching an appeal with my Ottawa colleague [Archbishop Prendergast] for an awareness campaign and [for] more programs providing assistance for women in distress in Canada,” Cardinal Ouellet said. “There is a great scarcity of information, support and financial assistance to enable pregnant women to make an informed choice.”

“We know for now the law is not going to change in the short-term,” said Archbishop Prendergast said in a phone interview Thursday. “So what can we do to help women in difficulty now? If you pushed people on the pro-choice side they too would want to see fewer abortions. So we need to ask them to participate. Of course, we would like to restrict abortions and do away with them if we could, but in the short-term we should work together to reduce the number of abortions.”

This is a very positive development in the abortion debate we aren't allowed to have.

The Bishops are not advocating for a complete ban on abortion. They are calling for support for women and incremental changes. This is realistic, hopeful and inclusive of everyone including pro-choice people. The Bishops are showing leadership that our four political leaders refuse to show on abortion.

Even yesterday Gilles Duceppe was back in his own non-leadership role with "the we can't talk about abortion" bandwagon in the House:
"Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government says it does not wish to reopen the abortion debate. Cardinal Ouellet candidly admitted yesterday that he was raising the abortion issue now because the Conservative government had revived the debate by excluding abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries. Does the Prime Minister realize that because of him and his refusal to include abortion in his maternal health policy for foreign nations the abortion debate is again raging in Canada and Quebec?"

Then Mr. Duceppe says (and I'm going to digress here but I can't help myself...):
"Mr. Speaker...the Prime Minister... must also know that Kara Johnson, who was president of the National Council of the Conservative Party, is a member of Opus Dei, and that Nicole Charbonneau Barron, who will again be a candidate for his party in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is also a member of Opus Dei, and that a conservative member invited his colleagues to dine with Opus Dei leaders."

What relevance does being a member of Opus Dei have on this conversation or any conversation? It's like saying "Did you know that Gilles Duceppe dined with Francophones from Quebec?"

To which the correct answer would be in either case...so what?

Our political leaders (with the exception of some MPs who do and will speak out on abortion) show no leadership on abortion because they are politically motivated and not morally motivated.

But with a critical mass of grass roots support from the country, including leaders such as the Bishops, maybe we can change the hearts and minds of the country. And maybe our political leaders will follow.

Baby steps. But positive baby steps.

What would the Martians think? (Part 4...why late-term abortions are not inconsequential)

In my Martian series, I wanted to write next about what Dawn Fowler Canadian Director, National Abortion Federation (NAF) says about late-term abortions.

Ms. Fowler says:
"According to data obtained through CIHI, 0.08% of abortions in 2004 were provided after 20 weeks gestation. This percentage does not support the notion promulgated by abortion opponents that women in Canada routinely obtain abortion care up to nine months of pregnancy. In fact, nearly 80% of abortions are provided during the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy."

Then out of the sky drops Margaret Wente’s, tired timeworn throwaway pro-abortion comment regarding this very subject. Ms. Wente says "Virtually no late-term abortions – the rarest and most contentious kind – are performed here".

In other words, that pretty much takes care of the notion of late-term abortions--what other pro-life concerns can we dispense with?

Not so fast ladies.

Let’s look at the statistics from Statistics Canada. Ms. Fowler says that only .08 or 401 late-term abortions were done in 2004. (my more recent 2006 statistics say 464 so I will use these stats).

We know that Canada had at least 464 late-term abortions in 2006. That’s equivalent to a large elementary school of laughing screaming having fun children. Dead. Yanked out of their mother’s womb with a pick-ax to the brain or some such hideous "procedure" (another in a long line of pro-abortion euphemisms).

The reason I say "at least" is because--and you'll never hear an abortion advocate talk about this--Statistics Canada says in a foot note next to the number 55,006:
"Note the large number of induced abortions with an unknown gestation range."

That is correct. There were fifty-five thousand and six abortions in 2006 for which we do not know the gestational age of the fetus. How many of these were late-term abortions? Well it could be one. Or it could just as easily be that all 55,006 were late-term.

Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist and brain physiology researcher at the University of Toronto. He testified as an expert witness on fetal pain before the House Judiciary. Dr. Ranalli worries about the pain felt by the unborn child in late term abortions, and in fact, Nebraska has approved a bill to ban abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation on the basis of fetal pain.

Tell me, pro-abortion people with your disinterested comments about late-term abortions--does the extreme pain suffered by these unborn children during their late-term abortions bother you even a little bit?

Our Martian friends asks incredulously:
"You mean to say, you destroy between 464 and 55,006 of your offspring yearly, that are fully formed viable human beings, in an excruciating painful manner, and then tell people it is of no consequence?" Yes.

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

What do victimized women think?

The press is buzzing over Cardinal Marc Ouellet's comments that abortion is a "moral crime" and that it is unacceptable even in the case of rape. The National Post knows there is nothing new here and that Cardinal Ouellet is simply "reiterating conventional Church doctrine on the subject of abortion."

So what about abortion in cases of rape and incest? Surely we all agree that abortion in these cases is perfectly justifiable, right? But has anyone ever actually researched that question and provided an answer?

Amy Sobie, editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute has:
"Our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma...Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this "fact," it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a "rapist’s child…it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims...although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault...This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault...Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them…"

Maybe we should ask victimized women how they feel, instead of taking the word of abortion advocates.

One woman, Kathleen wrote:
"I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."