Pro-life clubs - What are universities afraid of anyway?

Another University pro-life group has been denied club status. This time at Ryerson University:

"In the fall semester we came together to form a student group called Students For Life at Ryerson (SFLR) and applied for club status through the Ryerson Student Union (RSU). In order to be approved and gain club status, we needed a majority vote from Ryerson Student Groups Committee. Unfortunately this did not happen.  Instead we got an email from a student group’s representative stating that we were denied club status because the union  “opposes…groups, meetings, or events that promote misogynist views towards woman [sic] and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right [sic] to bodily autonomy, or justifies [sic] sexual assault”. They provided us no evidence on how our group promoted misogyny or how we justified sexual assault which left us confused and offended. It was never (and never will be) our intention to marginalize, discriminate or judge women and so for our student union to make such allegations against us proves their misunderstanding of our group. After launching an appeal, our group waited a full month before being given the opportunity to appeal the denial of our student club. As a result of our meeting with our student union we were given the opportunity to plead our case for club status one last time in front of our Board of Directors. After an hour long meeting of more scrutinizing questions we were denied club status yet again by a unanimous vote."

What is it about Universities, that they are so offended by pro-life people, that they must be barred from campuses? What are these universities afraid of anyway, the truth?

And what ever happened to free speech on university campuses anyway?

"Legal action requires finances, and as two university students, there is not much we can do to contribute to the financial side of fighting for our rights. We need to raise $20,000 for various legal fees. Although this poses a great challenge, we refuse to let finances hold us back! We are aiming to reach out to pro-life individuals, groups, and communities, as well as individuals who support free speech, to help support us reach our financial goal. 

It is challenging being a pro-life student and advocate, but it is even more challenging when our own student union will not allow us to express our right to free speech because we do not align with the status quo. Please consider donating so that you can help us stand up for our rights but more importantly  the rights of the unborn. 

Click here for more information on donating."

Pro-abortions drop dangerous drugs into Poland

Women on Waves is going to dump Mifepristone (or RU-486) onto Poland. Literally.

They are flying the abortion drug in using drones.

Abortion is illegal in Poland. But that won't stop these people. And RU-486 is a very dangerous drug. Especially for women in remote areas with no access to emergency care:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-4-more-on-safety-and-remote.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/01/ru-486-can-be-lethal-for-women-in.html

But according to the Star article, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, the founder of Women on Waves, says the drug is safe:

"women in the drone campaign should feel safe taking the pill without direct medical supervision and will receive instructions on what to expect, and when to seek medical attention, from their partnering organizations."

That's not what Renate Klein--a pro-choice person--thinks. In Klein's book (RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals), she says:

"Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy." 

Then Gomperts tells the women to lie to their doctor if there are complications.

"If complications do arise, Women on Waves advises the women to tell their doctor that they miscarried." 

So how can these women be properly treated if they lie to their doctor about the dangerous drug they took?

It seems the pro-abortions will stop at nothing to ply their deadly trade. I hope that none of these women are killed by this drug.

We need a Law announces election tour

From We need a Law:

"It is our goal that Canada's leaders don't ignore the injustice that is being committed against 100,000 of our pre-born neighbours every year. Lord willing, lifeTOUR will be hosting events in 18 cities from Charlottetown to Vancouver!

Canadians are perhaps, more than ever, fixated on important political issues during an election campaign. The 2015 election gives us a prime opportunity to inject the narrative of pre-born human rights into the issues being discussed by media and the politicians vying for Canadians' votes.

We invite you to check out lifeTOUR.ca and stay tuned for more details as the summer progresses."

Aborting babies with Down Syndrome is not "Human"

After a series of tweets calling children born with Down Syndrome "defective", anonymous blogger feels the need to defend herself with this blog entry: The Down Side: Prenatal Testing and Its Consequences.

Here is some of what she said in her blog post:

"[Renate Lindeman], a "spokesperson for Dutch parent group Downpride." claims that Down Syndrome screening is about "eliminating a group of people."

No, it's not. It's individual parents and families, offered tests, given results, thinking it over, and making individual decisions based on their own desires and capacities. 

In other words, people taking advantage of technological ingenuity to get information in order to make their own choices about their own families. 

It doesn't get more human than this. 

I took crap on Twitter the other day for calling Down Syndrome a defect, admonished rather to use the term "different."...

It's not evil, it's not genocide, and it certainly is not Nazi.  

And the state has no fucking business in it. At. All. 

Note to commenters: Yes. I know Down Syndrome people can be lovely, joyful people. And to people who choose to birth and bring up these children, good on you. But your saintliness gives you no right to shit on people who choose not to."

I just watched a remarkable documentary called "Abigail & Brittany Hensel - The Twins Who Share a Body". Abigail and Brittany are conjoined identical twins.

Are these girls also "defective" and worthy of eliminating? Because they sure don't go by the text book definition of what is human.

What about someone who is born with limbs missing like thalidomide babies in the 1960's? Also "defective" and worthy of eliminating?

Being human means you are born into the human species. You are a human being. Not a single one of us is perfect. And what about babies born who will go on to develop mental illness? And babies with a hole in their heart or with with one foot? And what about babies with genetic disorders like those with Down Syndrome?

If we can eliminate children before birth because they are "defective", what's to stop us from eliminating them after birth as well? Where does it stop? Who decides who is to live and who is to die? Anonymous blogger says its "not evil, it's not genocide, and it certainly is not Nazi" to eliminate these humans. That's exactly what it is. The Nazis wanted to create the perfect human race, devoid of Jews, Poles, Catholics, Gypsy's and homosexuals. We call that eugenics.

Aborting children born with Down Syndrome is just more of the same evil, genocidal Nazism. Saying it's not, doesn't make it true.

Does Justin Trudeau realize who he's flirting with?

"...Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies..." (Fleetwood Mac 1987)

Justin Trudeau is not stupid. Justin Trudeau is not ignorant.

So why did he tell the CBC this morning, that women have a charter right to abortion? 

Trudeau said:

"A Woman's right to choose is a charter right."

This isn't true.

Is it because he is doing the populace thing and telling (some) people what he thinks they want to hear? Is he doing it to get votes? Why is he courting the radical feminists?

He's not saying this for the "pro-choice" crowd--those who don't support unlimited abortion for any reason at any time.

It's the pro-abortions this would appeal to, a very small minority of (mostly) women who are extreme abortion advocates who believe late term abortion is okay; who believe sex-selection abortion is okay; who believe any abortion is always okay. The ones who worship at the altar of abortion.

I can't think of any other reasons he'd say this.

Dear Justin, 

The Charter doesn't give women the right to abortion. You know this. 

It does your credibility no good when you make up stuff about the Charter. It puts you in the same category as the pro-abortions who do this all the time. Is this really who you want to be identified with? 

I strongly suggest you rethink your strategy. I don't think this is the company you want to keep. 

Sincerely,
etc. etc.