Safe access to abortion services is never safe for the fetus

Today Maureen and I joined Fr. Tony Van Hee witnessing outside the abortion bubble zone near the abortion site in Ottawa.

It was a very cold day with a -18 wind chill. Especially cold when you are standing there for any length of time.

Have you ever thought of the irony of this bill, the so-called "safe access to abortion services"? Imagine a person holding a sign that talks about free speech as being unsafe to anyone accessing abortion?

And what about the class of persons for whom abortion is never safe, and never can be safe: the child yet to be born? No such thing as safe access to abortion for her.

Why people silently witness at the abortion site

In Michael Gaitley's book The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, in chapter four he talks about St. Faustina. St. Faustina was a simple Catholic nun who died at 33 in 1939 right before Hitler invaded Poland.

Her Diary is am amazing story of God's Mercy.

But it was a footnote regarding St. Faustina's prediction of World War II that surprised me. I had read St. Faustina's Diary but was unaware of this fact. It is a sworn statement from Blessed Michael Sopocko regarding St. Faustina's beatification. Fr. Sopocko was St. Faustina's spiritual director.

"[Sister Faustina] also foretold the destruction that would afflict the Fatherland (Poland), that there would come most sorrowful times. She saw her fellow citizens expelled to the East and the West.

She wrote in her Diary that Jesus himself said he was about to destroy one of the most beautiful cities of our country like Sodom on account of the crimes committed there.

Having read these things in her Diary, I asked her what this prophecy meant. She answered confirming the things she wrote, and, responding to a further question of mine: On account of what sins God would inflict these punishments, she replied, "especially on account of the slaughter of infants not yet born, as the most grievous crime of all." (emphasis added)"

When I read this, all I could think of was: Fr. Tony's silent witness near the abortion facility. What could possibly be more important than this? 

How the abortion bubble zone creates two classes of people

One of the inconsistencies of the Bill to Create Safe Access to Abortion Services is that if you're pro-life, you can't carry a sign inside the bubble zone. But if you're "pro-choice", you can carry a sign. See here and here.

And this week, once again, we see this discrimination in action:

"We had some protesters at the 40 Days for Life mid-point rally. They were inside the bubble zone with their usual signs. I asked the Ottawa police if they (so called pro-choicers) are allowed signs within the bubble zone and I was told that they are."

In other words, we only apply freedom of expression rights to people, if they are "pro-choice". 

Protesting public policy on public property - prohibited

Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos has filed two letters: one to the Attorney General of Ontario, and one to the Crown regarding charges against him. Fr. Tony who was charged under the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act which prohibits freedom of expression rights for pro-life people only.

If a pro-choice person held a sign in the same place, they wouldn't be charged. Therefore this bill not only prohibits free speech, but is also discriminatory against pro-life people. 

Letter to Attorney General

Letter to Crown Prosecutor’s Office

According to the letter:

"The Defendant intends to question the constitutional validity of the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, chapter 19 Schedule 1.

...

The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question:

10. Father Van Hee was protesting a political and public policy issue on public property. The Act has resulted in his freedom of expression pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being violated. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

11. The Act is arbitrary and overbroad and contrary to the Charter. As such, the Act is null and void. 

12. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression do not serve a pressing and substantial objective. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

13. The means chosen to serve the Act’s objective are not rationally connected to the objective, are not minimally impairing and are not proportionate. 

14. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It's pretty pathetic how pro-life people are continually having to defend our right to freedom of expression by going to court. It's supposedly a right but it sure isn't free when you have to go to court and pay for it. Over and over again.

Educating MPs on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Letter from Theresa Winchester to her MP Neil Ellis

Just thought I'd write to you to remind you that Human Rights Day is coming up on Dec 10, same as every year for some time now. 

So why would I want to remind you of this, you ask?  Because Canada is doing an incredibly BAD job of protecting its children in spite of being a member of the United Nations.

Please confirm my belief that Canada is a nation state of the United Nations and as such, as party to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights.   

And why would I say that?  Because the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state a few things that somehow, the government of Canada and therefore you, do not honour or respect in Canada.  Let's just copy and paste from this very credible website:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

...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",  

...in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance, 

...the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, 

Article 6

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

So, you likely are a pretty smart dude, having made it to be my local MP.  Tell me how you reconcile all of these rights of the child with the approximately 100,000 yearly deaths of Canadian children by abortion.  And even more baffling, how children who survive abortion are left to die or deliberately killed after birth and no one is held accountable under the Criminal Code of Canada.  Cause I just can't get my head around that. 

There are some very very basic, easy to understand facts at play here that neither right nor honourable Justin Trudeau and the entire Liberal Party seem to be unaware of:

a.  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadian humans a right to life;

b.  There is no right to an abortion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   Because JT keeps referring to it again and again, I've looked at the Charter again and again -- it just ain't there!  Or does he perhaps have an unpublished but more official version of the Charter?  That would explain it.  

Please correct me if there is something that I do not understand.  After all, you're an Member of Parliament and I am only a taxpaying retired 30 year Canadian Forces Human Resources specialist.  You likely understand these documents far better than I.  Cause to me, simple-minded as I am, it seems to me that every abortion to which there is no right in Canada or in the UN takes life which is a protect right from a child.  What am I missing here?  

Sure is baffling.  And yet it continues.  And the PM continues to say things that are not true.  And all his MPs nod in agreement on that side of the house like a bunch of Bobbleheads.  

Just saying.