Monday, December 31, 2012

A pro-life wish for 2013

(This letter to Mr. Harper is posted with permission from the author)

21 December 2012

Honourable Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada,

Mr. Harper, I am writing to you after watching a preview of your Christmas interview with The Global Television Network. In the interview, you said that in the future Canada will not face an unemployment problem, but a labour shortage and that bringing others into Canada to fill the labour shortage is only a band aid solution to the problem. You also said we need to train Canadians for positions that need to be filled now and into the future; engineering was cited as a profession where we will need people.

When watching the clips of your interview, my mind wandered back one week to December 14th when I watched President Obama publicly mourn the loss of twenty little children. According to him, the children had their whole lives ahead of them. Mr. Obama passionately talked about children who should have had graduations to attend, jobs to go to, that they would likely be married and have families of their own; but tragically, all this was taken away from them by a senseless and deliberate act of violence. Mr. Obama also stated that the children were destroyed in what should have been the safest place on earth, their school. In reality, the safest place on earth for children is their first home, their mothers’ womb.

Mr. Harper, each year in Canada we destroy more than 100,000 children and we do it in the wombs of their mothers, supposedly the safest place on earth for these children. We destroy the lives of these children in the same way that Mr. Obama described the massacre of the twenty children in Newtown, Connecticut, by senseless and deliberate acts of violence. Mr. Harper, these children have their lives taken from them before they even have an opportunity to go to school, or to graduate or to marry and have families. It is very conceivable that hundreds of engineers, teachers, doctors, or even a future Prime Minister of Canada have been/are destroyed by the violence of the abortionists’ curettes, their suction apparatus, and their scissors or by life destroying intra cardiac injections of Potassium Chloride.

Mr. Harper, I believe most Canadians would agree with you that we need more of us, so that our future in Canada is secure. I also believe you understand that children who have their lives taken from them by abortion are the future labourers and engineers that you speak about in the interview. Mr. Harper, the senseless killing of twenty innocent and defenceless school children in Newtown is only different from the children killed at the hands of abortionists by two things, their ages and where they were/are living when their lives were/are taken from them. As you can tell, I am finding it difficult to make my verbs agree at this point because although the deaths of the twenty school children in Newtown is past, this is not so for the children who are killed by abortion. Yes, Mr. Harper just in the past week thousands more innocent and defenceless children have lost their lives; but their deaths go unnoticed by the media, by their president and by their Prime Minister.

Please, Mr. Harper won’t you reconsider your “I will not open the abortion debate” for the sake of all Canadians and for the sake of our country. Please, Mr. Harper listen to the majority of Canadians (Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada Sept 2011) who want restrictions placed on abortion. Please, Mr. Harper open your heart at this blessed Christmas time when Christians understand that all human life is sacred and needs to be protected.

With Respect,
Jennifer Snell

Saturday, December 29, 2012

A cheat sheet for letter's editors to keep readers

By far the best newspaper letter's page in the country, is the one headed up by Paul Russell at the National Post.

Today Mr. Russell publishes his cheat sheet for having your letter to the editor published. This is a comprehensive "writing letters" primer that will help anyone get their letter published.

Mr. Russell always publishes letters on both sides of any debate, including the abortion debate. The other national newspaper (and this may have changed since I stopped either subscribing to, or reading that other newspaper, but I doubt it) barely ever ran any pro-life letters, mine included. So I have no idea where Mr. Russell stands on the abortion debate. In my opinion that is as it should be. His bias whatever it is, doesn't seep into what he is willing to publish or not publish.

And since we can't have the abortion debate in Parliament because of Mr. Harper's national ban on abortion free speech, well all I can say is, thank God for the National Post.

Mr. Russell also regularly invites readers to submit 75 words on various subjects. He actually wants to know what people think. Imagine that.

Other newspapers could learn a thing or two by reading the Post's letters page. Not that they will. But they could. If you know what I mean.

My mother always told me to give credit where credit was due. Thank you Paul Russell.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Christmas in Harlem

Catherine Doherty's Christmas in Harlem from her book Donkey Bells.

Read by Fr. Jerry at Annunciation of the Lord Parish, Ottawa.

Thanks to Maureen Ward.

Merry Christmas to all!

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

A Christmas Poem

by Barbara McAdorey

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the town
Traffic congested the streets up and down.
Shopping mall parking spots soon became rare
From too many shoppers; that made tempers flare.
Joy to the World at this time is forgot
As you curse at the driver who took the last spot.

The kid now starts screaming he wants this new toy
Your stress levels rise in this season of joy.
But what's one more toy when you're out on a binge
So you pull out your card and you try not to cringe.

Then there's more gifts to buy for Heaven knows who
Is this gift ok? Did they buy for me too?
Still more things to buy and cards to send out
But then panic and debt's what this season's about.

'Twas the night before Christmas, not much more you could do
Thankful there was just one more day to get through.

'Twas the night after Christmas in Heaven above
The Devil was speaking to God about love:
You have to admit that my plan is quite fine
You don't see much love in the world at this time.
They talk about Peace, Love, Hope and Joy
But their actions sure show they don't care for Your Boy.
Christmas is becoming what I want it to be
Causing those humans such anxiety.
Sure there's some fun with the candies and toys
But that is short lived for most girls and boys.
The true things that last as You, God, best know
Are no longer valued on Earth down below.
And talking of Christ has become incorrect
I've made them all feel that it shows disrespect
For others who may not worship your Son,
You must admit with this scheme I have won!
And I laugh at these humans, for my trick they all fall
For your Son is why Christmas existed at all!
If these things continue, my work's almost done
In another few years, they'll have forgotten Your Son!
When that great day comes, Your humans will buy,
Buy more and more, and not even know why!
So their stress will increase and they'll try all the more
To find some of that joy they gave up years before!

God spoke not a word and as calm as could be
He pointed to Earth for the Devil to see.
The boy with the gizmo was bored now, it's true
But the boy had a plan of what he should do.
He went to the house of a neighbourhood boy
Who was poor, had no friends, he was bringing the toy!
And he didn't just go there to give it away
He gave him the toy and he stayed there to play!

And the Devil stopped laughing, thought, Maybe I'm wrong,
Perhaps they were good deep down all along,
Maybe there is some love left, what a fright!
Well, there's always next year. I'm exhausted. Good night!
Copyright © 1998 by Barbara McAdorey

Barbara McAdorey is the author of the children's storybook, Icicles to Miracles.
This poem was first published in the December 1999 issue of Our Family magazine.

Picture from original painting by Paula E. Maloney
From the children's storybook, Icicles to Miracles

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Our lady of Guadalupe

Pro-life Mass, Notre Dame Cathedral, Ottawa, Saturday December 15, 2012

Isabelle O'Connor sings "Hymne a Notre Dame de Guadalupe".

Video, courtesy Maureen Ward.

Thank you Mary, Isabelle and Maureen!


Friday, December 14, 2012

Dear Mr. Hudak, remember me?

Dear Mr. Hudak,

I wanted to write you again, and give you an update on the McGuinty government's stealth attack on Freedom of Information (FOI) in Ontario.

You never responded to my last letter on this issue. Neither did your health critic Christine Elliott. In fact, I also sent letters to three of your other MPPs regarding this horrid situation, Mr. Randy Hillier, Mr. John O'Toole and Mr. Rick Nicholls. By snail mail no less. None of them responded to me either. Funny that.

If one was a conspiracy theorist, one might even wonder if someone told them to keep quiet on this (apparently) touchy topic.

In any event, since you and your Conservatives did nothing to stop this fiasco, I thought I'd find out for myself what went on, when all of this occurred.

So I sent in another FOI to the Ministry of Health and asked for this:
"copies of any and all information (i.e. briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents) relating to this recent abortion exclusion clause in Bill 122, An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. Specifically, referring to this clause 65 (5.7): "This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17).". As well, I would like to see any and all information (i.e. briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents) that may not specifically refer to the above clause, but that does refer to "abortion" or "abortion services" and that resulted in this eventual exclusion clause which came into effect on January 1, 2012."

What do you think I got back? Not much (see below). Why? Because of these reasons:
• Section 12 (Cabinet Records), some of the records would reveal the substance of cabinet's deliberations or contain draft legislation.
• s. 19 (a)(b) (Solicitor-Client Privilege), all records contain Solicitor-Client Privilege.
• Section 13 (1) (Advice to Government), some records contain recommendations.
• Non-Responsive to request, the records contain information about issues other than the abortion exclusion.

I have a suggestion for you. Maybe you could do something about this. Maybe when you try and get elected next time, maybe you could follow the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario's philosophy regarding Access to Information:
"Access to information is a fundamental and necessary democratic right.

The values underlying freedom of information (FOI) laws, regardless of their jurisdiction, are quite simple — open, transparent, accountable and citizen-driven government. Stated simply, FOI legislation is based on a presumption that information should be widely available and accessible to the public. Governments throughout the world have recognized that citizens of a democratic state have the right to know what their government is doing, and to hold it responsible for its actions and inactions. Accordingly these rights have been enshrined in legislation providing for, and protecting, public access to government-held information."

And Mr. Hudak, you could:

a) reverse this secret abortion exclusion clause and restore our "right" to participate in the democratic process, and

b) ensure that our right to access information is granted all citizens of Ontario.

You never know. A little "openness, transparency and accountability" goes a long way. It might even get you elected.

Patricia Maloney

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Friday, December 7, 2012

Update: Live birth abortions on the rise in Canada; also some abortions reported as stillbirths

Statistics Canada

Stillbirth statistics from Statistics Canada (SC) are shown in Table 1 below. The stats refer to babies of at least 500 grams or at least 20 weeks gestation. (1)

Stillbirth statistics published on-line CANSIM table 102-4514 do not separate natural stillbirths from abortion stillbirths, so I asked SC to separate them out for me. I asked for years 2000 to 2010 (11 years). I compiled their four pages of statistics into the one table you see below, Table 1.

As Table 1 shows, there were 4,624 stillbirths of 20 weeks or more due to abortion (code P96.4, termination of pregnancy) from 2000 to 2010. Of these, there were 279 abortions 28 weeks or more (code P96.4, termination of pregnancy).

Note that all stillbirths > 28 weeks gestation, are included in the > 20 weeks gestation totals.

I have already reported on SC live birth abortions here.


Stillbirth and livebirth abortion statistics from CIHI are shown in Table 2 below. This data was for fiscal year 2010/2011 (For one year only. Also note that their on-line annual published tables are produced by calendar year and not fiscal year.)

This is what CIHI told me in an email on November 1, 2012, when I asked why the data they gave me for stillbirths had no gestational age, whereas their regular published data here, had gestational ages for abortions:
"The gestational age is found on the mother’s termination of pregnancy abstract, which is why we were able to provide gestational age in our published tables. However, the gestational age is not on the stillborn abstract, and there is no way to link the mother and stillborn abstracts, so we are not able to provide the gestational age for stillborns."

There were 727 stillbirth abortions reported by CIHI for that one year 2010/2011. SC reported that there was an average of 420 per year (4624/11 years for 2000-2010). That is a big difference. So I asked SC to explain the discrepancy between their data and CIHI's data. Their complete explanation is below.

Note that CIHI's stillbirth data does not include any stillbirths for Quebec, while SC data does include Quebec stillbirths.

Regarding live birth abortions: I believe it is possible that the live birth abortions reported by SC/CIHI may be over and above CIHI's annual published abortions because of what SC told me here:
"On the very rare occasion when an induced abortion might result in a live birth (and possibly subsequent death) these cases may or may not be included in the Therapeutic Abortion Database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information, however, instructs hospital coders to identify a birth rather than an abortion in this situation, thus such cases would not be counted in the Therapeutic Abortion Database. It is unknown whether private clinics would still report an abortion if the outcome of the abortion procedure was a live birth."
(This paragraph forms part of the reply I received from SC, the full text appears below.)

From Table 2, you will notice that the number of live birth abortions from CIHI was 157 for 2010/2011. But that number includes: 38 abortions less than 20 weeks, 9 abortions 25-28 weeks and < 5 for 29+ weeks (2). So in order to compare to the SC numbers, we need to look at just the known live birth abortions > 20 weeks. That number is 119 live birth abortions in one year. SC is reporting 491 over 11 years (52 in 2000, 29 in 2001, 21 in 2002, 43 in 2003, 44 in 2004, 52 in 2005, 49 in 2006, 71 in 2007, 63 in 2008, and 67 in 2009).

As you can see, the 119 live birth abortions reported by CIHI for the year 2010/2011 is much higher than any of these previous reported years from SC.

Regarding stillbirth abortions:

Notice this from SC and the part underlined in particular:
"As mentioned above, a termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of a fetus that meets the gestational age and/or weight defined as a stillbirth will be registered. However, retrieving all such events based on the underlying cause of stillbirth variable is not possible. The cause of stillbirth will not be classified as due to the termination of pregnancy (ICD-10 code P96.4) unless there is sufficient information to make this conclusion. The calibre of the certification of the medical cause of stillbirth certificate is such that often what is likely a stillbirth due to a termination of pregnancy, is classified to some other underlying cause."
(This paragraph forms part of the reply I received from SC, the full text appears below.)

I interpret this to mean that some unknown number of stillbirths reported as "other underlying cause" could, and probably are, late term abortions (or code P96.4, termination of pregnancy). Recall that there are many abortions reported by CIHI that are of unknown gestational ages, see here and here.

The question we can't answer is, how many of these stillbirths with “other underlying cause” are in fact late term abortions?

Another question we can’t answer: are the 727 abortion stillbirths reported by CIHI over and above the annual abortion stats that CIHI reports, or are they included in those counts? Even CIHI does not know the answer. This is what CIHI told me in an October 22, 2012 email:
"since CIHI’s abortion tables count terminations of pregnancy, technically this means that terminations of pregnancy that result in a stillbirth may also end up being included in the counts. However, this cannot be confirmed as there is no way to link the stillbirth abstracts with the mothers’ terminations of pregnancy abstracts that were included in CIHI’s abortion tables.”


Below is the full text of the response I received from SC in an email dated November 20, 2012 regarding the discrepancy between the data between CIHI and SC.

You may interpret it differently than I did.

"It is normal that the vital stats would be lower for various reasons. 1) The TA numbers up to 2003 include Quebec data. 2) Although an induced abortion was performed, the “underlying cause of death” may not have been certified/coded as a termination of pregnancy. 3) Reporting stillbirths resulting from a termination of pregnancy has not been done consistently over the period of observation.

I have been asked to address the questions you raised in regard to the scope and coverage of the Therapeutic Abortion Database.

The Therapeutic Abortion Database contains information on induced abortions performed in hospitals and clinics in Canada. The database also includes counts from some American states of abortions performed on Canadian residents. The database includes all reported induced abortions, regardless of the gestational age. In other words, the database does include induced abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or more.

The level of information on gestation period varies within the database, however. Some induced abortions are reported simply as total counts, while other data sources provide detailed records including date of last menses or reported gestational age. In the 2000 data year, there were 105,669 reported induced abortions. Of this number there were 58,167 cases with no gestational information.

It is possible that an induced abortion event can be included in the Therapeutic Abortion Database as well as in the Vital Statistics Stillbirths database (or even very rarely the Vital Statistics Birth and Death databases.) The following paragraphs describe the definition and registration of stillbirths, especially those resulting from termination of pregnancy.

Statistics Canada's statistics on stillbirths are obtained from an administrative survey that collects demographic information annually from all provincial and territorial vital statistics registries on all stillbirths (late fetal deaths) in Canada. Some data are also collected on stillbirths to Canadian resident women in selected American states.

Stillbirth is currently defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, which did not at any time after birth breathe or show other sign of life. Any product of conception that does not show signs of life and meets the reporting requirements, must be registered as a stillbirth under provincial and territorial vital statistics acts. In 2001, most provinces and all three territories required a stillbirth with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or a birth weight of at least 500 grams to be registered. In Quebec and Saskatchewan (and New Brunswick prior to November 1996), only stillbirths weighing at least 500 grams were required to be registered, regardless of the gestational age. Until 1997, a gestational age of at least 20 weeks was required for stillbirths to be registered in Prince Edward Island, regardless of the birth weight.

In all provinces and territories except for New Brunswick, a fetal death that results from an intentional termination of the pregnancy would be registered as a stillbirth if the fetus met the definition in terms of its gestational age and/or birth weight. New Brunswick does not register fetal deaths that result from intentional termination of the pregnancy as stillbirths even if the fetus would otherwise meet the definition for a stillbirth. Statistics Canada compiles stillbirth statistics on all registered stillbirths for which data are received from the provincial and territorial vital statistics registries, regardless of whether the stillbirth resulted from a spontaneous or intentional pregnancy termination.

The registration of a stillbirth uses a different registration form than that which is used to register a death, although both forms have some common elements such as the cause, whether an autopsy was held, and the designation of the certifier. Statistics on births, stillbirths, and deaths are reported separately. There are editing procedures at both the provincial / territorial and at Statistics Canada to ensure that there are no duplicate records: a fetus born dead is registered as a stillbirth; one that is born alive and later dies, appears in both the birth and death statistics. In either of these situations the fetus may have been extracted from the woman by an induced abortion. Statistics for abortion, however, are based on hospital or clinic reports, the requirements for these are separate and different from those required under the vital statistics acts. On the very rare occasion when an induced abortion might result in a live birth (and possibly subsequent death) these cases may or may not be included in the Therapeutic Abortion Database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information, however, instructs hospital coders to identify a birth rather than an abortion in this situation, thus such cases would not be counted in the Therapeutic Abortion Database. It is unknown whether private clinics would still report an abortion if the outcome of the abortion procedure was a live birth.

As mentioned above, a termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of a fetus that meets the gestational age and/or weight defined as a stillbirth will be registered. However, retrieving all such events based on the underlying cause of stillbirth variable is not possible. The cause of stillbirth will not be classified as due to the termination of pregnancy (ICD-10 code P96.4) unless there is sufficient information to make this conclusion. The calibre of the certification of the medical cause of stillbirth certificate is such that often what is likely a stillbirth due to a termination of pregnancy, is classified to some other underlying cause.

In summary, a termination of a pregnancy of at least 20 weeks gestation can feasibly be included in both the Therapeutic Abortion Database and the Vital Statistics Stillbirth database. On the very rare occasion that the outcome of an induced abortion is a live birth (and possible subsequent death), the abortion event is highly unlikely to be included in the Therapeutic Abortion Database, but will appear in the Vital Statistics Birth and Death databases.

(1) Stats Can defines “stillbirth” as follows: “Fetal death (stillbirth) is death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy; the death is indicated by the fact that after such separation the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles. Only fetal deaths where the product of conception has a birth weight of 500 grams or more or the duration of pregnancy is 20 weeks or longer are registered in Canada.” (from footnote 2 of CANSIM table 102-4514)

(2) Cell sizes less than 5 are suppressed due to privacy and confidientality

Table 1: Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Vital Statistics, Stillbirth database

Table 2: Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), Discharge Abstract Database (DAD)/ Hospital Morbidity Database (HMDB)

Table 2: Notes

Thursday, December 6, 2012

It is what it is

I don't understand what NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is saying regarding Mark Warawa's Motion 408.

This motion calls on Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

This is what Mr. Mulcair said:
"Of course these are complicated issues, there’s no denying that, but we know what it’s really about. It’s Stephen Harper and his Reform party base trying to reopen the abortion debate. We’re not going to be fooled by it.”

Mr. Mulcair says that this is a complicated issue. It really isn't very complicated though. Is Mr. Mulcair against sex-selection abortion, or is he for it? If he's against it, he should vote in favour of the Motion. If he is for sex-selection abortion, he should just say so.

And if Mr. Mulcair truly believes that these are complicated issues, then maybe he should first inform himself on these complicated issues, instead of jumping to that really boring, old, hidden agenda fairy-tale, about Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Nobody believes that anymore. Mr. Mulcair is as knowledgeable on that hypotheses as the rest of us: Mr. Harper will not now, and never will, let us talk about abortion. Not today, not tomorrow, and not in fifteen years from now.

So why is Mr. Mulcair pretending like this?

Instead of making wild leaps of logic from "complicated issue" to Mr. Harper's reopening the abortion debate, why doesn't Mr. Mulcair actually read Mr. Warawa's motion and see if it is something that he can support, based on what it actually says? Because if he did read the motion, and it's really not that complicated, he could decide in about ten seconds what he thinks of it.

For anyone to be against this motion, then they must be in fact, in favour of female feticide. And if they are in in favour of female feticide, then they should just say so, and stand up for what they believe in.

Nope, it's not complicated at all.

What do you think about abortion?

Ruth Lobo Shaw and James Shaw from CCBR, spoke at Annunciation of the Lord Parish Monday evening, December 3.

They ask the question: "What do you think about abortion?"

Monday, November 26, 2012

It's time for a change

I agree with Margaret Somerville's reasoned approach to some legal limits on abortion.

Dr. Somerville says:
To find some common ground, we have to stop allowing people with views at the far ends of either the pro-choice spectrum or the pro-life spectrum to dominate the debate, as they now do, especially in the mainstream media. For too long, the battles between those on each extreme have prevented the nuanced discussion with which most Canadians can identify. We need to work together and build on the existing consensus, rather than focus just on differences. In short, we need to start our discussions from where we agree, not where we disagree.

There are pro-choice people who are against third trimester abortions and or sex selection abortions and who would support such legal restrictions. But as Dr. Somerville points out, we have allowed ourselves, for far too long now, to be swayed by the extremes on either end of the abortion debate.

This has simply guaranteed that legal protection for pre-born children will never become a reality, because the majority of Canadians would never agree to a complete ban on abortion. We know this. It isn't going to change. We need to engage these other Canadians who consider themselves somewhere between these two endposts.

I also agree with Dr. Somerville that:
"we need to consider supportive, non-coercive abortion prevention programs. For instance, a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support...we ensure there are facilities readily available for crisis pregnancy counseling, which are not abortion clinics"

Women need to be able to "be allowed" to say no to abortion and not coerced by whomever, including some "pro-choice" people. We need to help these women who want to say no, and support that choice.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

I think you're pulling my leg

Dear Mr. Clark,

I have to say that I found this editorial astoundingly rude, condescending, and disrespectful of Canadians in general and pro-lifers in particular. Since this was written as an editorial, I am assuming that you are speaking for your newspaper, which, I won't lie to you, is a scary thought indeed.

"The debate is over and lost" you say? I actually found that statement to be all of the above but also rip-roaring funny as well. Do you think that because you have made this proclamation we will now quietly leave the room with our tails between our legs? I don't think so.

I also see that you buy into that greatest myth of all time, the one that begins with "women" and ends with "the right to have control over their bodies". Earth to The Province: the unborn child is someone else's body and nobody has any right to kill it. Got it?

And "private choice"? Well as long as I and my fellow Canadians are paying for this non-medically-necessary "choice", that by the way, dismembers a defenceless, voiceless, tiny human being by forcefully removing it and ultimately killing it--well that "choice" isn't private anymore, so yes we will have our say, and we will have a role, and we will be that voice, for those who have no voice.

It's called standing up for human rights. It's a long and cherished human condition and preoccupation, look it up sometime. You might learn something new.

The debate is over you say? Not by a long shot. But if you choose, you can believe what you like.


Patricia Maloney

Monday, November 19, 2012

"Anti-abortion laws are unjust, harmful, and useless"

Joyce Arthur is advising the United Kingdom on abortion law. She recently wrote Why the UK doesn’t need an abortion law at all for the "Abortion Review", a UK group that is an "educational service by bpas". bpas are the UK's "premier abortion provider" and stands for British Pregnancy Advisory Service. (Not sure I'd want an abortion provider advising me on my pregnancy though.)

She says:
"For 25 years, Canada has had no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever – not even any gestational limits. From my perspective as a Canadian, the UK’s current debate over the proposed reduction in its legal time limit for an abortion is way off-base.

Politicians and the media seem trapped by the assumption that some kind of abortion law is necessary and they just need to decide what the limits are. In reality, the best solution is full decriminalization, because all anti-abortion laws are unjust, harmful, and useless – including the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act."

Pretty much what we'd expect from Canada's premier abortion advocate.

But it's when she starts describing Canada's situation and rates of abortions, that my alarm bells go off. Her "information" has gone international:
"Despite the lack of a gestational limit law in Canada, 90 per cent of abortions occur during the first trimester, and less than half a percent after 20 weeks. The latter are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life."

Since Canada's abortion statistics are so woefully under-reported, it is impossible to draw such conclusions from them.

Once again, let me explain what we do know about Canadian abortion statistics based on the last year for which abortion data was published in Canada, 2010.

Here I did it for Canada's 2009 CIHI stats, and I'll now do it again for CIHI's 2010 stats.

That year CIHI reported 64,641 abortions, a number we know is grossly under-reported Why? Frist, because Quebec did not report any statistics in 2010; second, it is not mandatory for clinics to report data so clinic data is under-reported; and third, abortions performed in private physician's offices are not published or reported at all.

Of these 64,641 known abortions, the gestational age is only reported for 22,668 of them (8,300 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 11,191 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,794 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 846 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 537 on fetuses 21+ weeks). These known gestational age abortions are reported for hospital abortions only--we have no gestational ages for those done in clinics or physician's offices.

Therefore there were at least 41,973 abortions performed in 2010 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 41,973 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we don't know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report them.

If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term, then the percentage could be as high as 65%. But we don't know. You must understand that the definition of "unknown" is--we don't know. To say that only .5% of abortions are late term is completely unknowable. It is also grossly misleading.

Next, Ms. Arthur says that 90% of all abortions are first trimester abortions. Again, this information is also unknowable. See explanation above.

In Canada there is no requirement to report or publish the reasons for late-term abortions, so Ms. Arthur can't know the reasons for them. She has no basis or knowledge to state that they:
"are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life".

So we don't know how many late-term abortions there are, to go along with not knowing the reasons for them. That's a lot of unknown information to be able to make such conclusions.

Finally, there is one other very disturbing statistic that Ms. Arthur doesn't divulge to the UK pro-abortions.

Statistics Canada reported that from 2000 to 2009 there were 491 late-term, born-alive abortions performed in Canada. These babies were "aborted" but resulted in live births: code name P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’. The aborted child died after it was born.

I'm all for talking about abortion statistics. But let's base the discussion on what we do know, and not on what we don't know.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Thank you Mr. Klees

Dear Mr. Klees,

Thank you. Thank you for being honest. Thank you for admitting you dropped the ball on Bill 122. The bill into which, Mr. McGgunty snuck the now infamous abortion exclusion clause.

Thank you for saying that: "we should all have the right to know what is happening in our hospitals whether it's knee operations, or whether its hip replacements or whether it's abortions. I think that the tax payer is footing the bill. I believe we have the right to know; there should be transparency and accountability."

While I hold Premier Dalton McGuinty and Heath Minister Deb Matthews responsible for this full frontal assault on free and open access to information in Ontario, with all due respect, your Leader Tim Hudak and Health critic Christine Elliott are not blameless. They did nothing to stop this attack on our access to information rights.

At least you had the courage to stand up, and while the camera was rolling, admit that you missed it. I like that. I like courage. I like honesty. These are very attractive qualities in a politician. Too bad more politicians don't hold these old-fashioned virtues.

And can you tell Mr. Hudak and Ms. Elliott for me, that if they're bored sometime, tell them to have a look at the video here and here. They might learn something about what this honesty and courage looks like. You know, it's never too late to admit when you dropped the ball.

Well that's it for now. Keep up the good work.

Patricia Maloney

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

We're staying

What is wrong with the majority of MPs in this country? Some are brave. And the rest? Well, I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself.

I just received a press release from MP Maurice Vellacott. He forwarded on an email he received from a Debbie Fisher who was shall I say, less than pleased with MP Bob Rae's comments regarding Mr. Vellacott nominating Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner for the Queen's Jubilee medals. Mr. Rae had said:
"By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence.”

Ms. Fisher replied:
"If memory serves me correctly it was the irresponsible Bob Rae government that caused this illegal temporary injunction in the first place and as a result of your disregard for women, thousands have now suffered the trauma of abortion without being fully informed of the consequences. I held a young girl in my arms yesterday who underwent an abortion 14 months ago at the Bloor clinic where Mary Wagner has been arrested. She told me they told her it was a short procedure to remove the "contents of the uterus" and she would be fine. Her marks have dropped, she has lived with guilt and remorse for over a year and she said she couldn't look at her boyfriend anymore because he reminded her of that day. Where is the counselling for this child who misses her child? Where are the resources for thousands like her? By the way Mr Rae, her child's name is Kaysen. My dead child's name is Noelle Marie. I was told to shut up when I started screaming for my child after my abortion because I was upsetting other people in the recovery room. I know better today that my child was not a blob of tissue and a mass of cells."

Then of course there was MP Stephen Woodworth's motion 312 that was defeated in in the House recently, a motion that simply asked to have a discussion on when a child becomes a human being.

Nope can't have that discussion.

And we can't discuss these things because some MPs are absolutely enthralled with that word "abortion", and its first cousin, "Women's rights". Can't talk about it. Can't think about it. Can't debate it. And please don't ask us to even talk about what a pre-born child is. No no no.

It has become so riduculous that even the Supreme Court has no idea what to even call a pre-born child:
"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is seldom at a loss for words. But even Beverley McLachlin stopped in her verbal tracks last month while hearing arguments in the matter of Regina v. Ivana Levkovic. The facts were enough to make you glad you’re not a judge: Levkovic, a former stripper from Mississauga, Ont., was accused of leaving the body of her newborn daughter on her apartment balcony, to be found—badly decomposed in a plastic bag—by her landlord when she vacated.

Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code, which forbids concealing the body of an infant “whether the child died before, during or after birth.” But pathologists were unable to determine whether Levkovic’s baby was born alive or dead, and under Canadian case law, a child has no legal rights before it has emerged from the womb. By using words like “child,” “baby” or “girl,” therefore, the judges could be implying humanity on the part of the deceased. They’d also be undermining Levkovic’s defence: if an unborn child has no right to legal protection, her lawyers had reasoned, how could the law stand?

Thus began a kind of linguistic minuet, as the judges reached for acceptable nomenclature for a hypothetical baby that the law might not regard as a person. McLachlin tried “object” and “being” and, at one cringeworthy point, referred to it as “this, um, dead, um, whatever.” Her colleagues didn’t fare much better. During a discussion of the applicability of mens rea, Justice Michael Moldaver, a former criminal lawyer who joined the court one year ago, referred to the infant in such cases as “the thing.”

Our Supreme Court Justices. Don't know. What to call. An unborn child. A pre-born child. A human being. What. Is. Their. Problem.

So...we can only leave it up to some MPs who do some thing.

Like Mark Warawa's recent motion M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."

I wonder if those naysayer MPs like Mr. Rae and Mr. Harper, and all the rest of them, think we are going away? I hope not, because we aren't. Nope. We're here to stay.

Monday, November 12, 2012

The road to Hell

Have a look at the World Health Organization document Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems

This document gave me goosebumps. It's a how-to manual for killing children.

You see, safe abortion, contrary to its name, isn't very safe for babies.

Check out page 40 and 41 in the document, section 2.2.3 “Induction of pre-procedure fetal demise”. In other words “this is how to ensure you kill the baby first so that she/he is not born alive.” Because we don't want any of those nasty little born-alives.

Then there is “Fetal demise” instead of "child’s death". And “Feticidal” instead of “fatal to the baby”. And ”fetal cardiac chambers” instead of “baby’s heart.”

There's more. A full 134 pages more.

And this: "The completion of abortion is verified by examination of the aspirated tissue" instead of
"The completion of the killing of the offspring is verified by examination of all the removed bits and pieces like the head, limbs, bowels, blood and broken bones of the dead baby. Yep it's all there. The death of the child was a complete success."

So how does WHO define "Health"? Well according to Wikipedia:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

What they they forgot to add was " long as you are not a pre-born member of the human species in which case none of the above applies."

What would someone arriving from outer space think, when they took a wrong turn and arrived at Planet Earth, to discover a species of "civilized" beings, where an organization who supposedly takes care of the species there, by "directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system", and with a straight face, can write a book on how to dismember, disembowel and decapitate the offspring of said species, by vacuuming its pre-born offspring out of the female members of the planet's inhabitants?

Would they think they had arrived in Hell and had simply missed the signs?

Sunday, November 11, 2012

I'm here to stay, plant me

From TEDTalks: Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized:

Tsiaras says:
"...and at nine weeks is this little human being...and 60,000 miles of blood vessels by nine months...even though I am a mathematician, I look at [fetal development] with marvel: How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?'s mystery, it's magic, it's divinity...."

Isn't Science fantastic? It can show us in minute detail how we are formed in our mother's womb.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Joyce Arthur sued

Joyce Arthur is being sued:
"The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network, in B.C. Supreme Court.

They claims defendants defamed them in a 2009 report, "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia...

...The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...

..."The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," the complaint states."

I wrote about that report in LifeNews and here and here after I learned through an Access to Information request that Pro-Can had received $27,400 to write that so-called report.

Should be interesting.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Pro-life conference 2012

Below are more videos from the pro-life conference this past weekend in Toronto.

MP Stephen Woodworth told us that :
"History is on the side of Justice and Human rights...
...if you mention the word Abortion, watch the politicians flee in all directions trampling over Canada ideals I just mentioned. Like the ideal that every human being has an intrinsic worth and dignity; the ideal that laws have to be honest; that respectful dialogue is a necessity for Canadians...
...they will trample on those ideals simply because they are enchanted, enthralled and preoccupied with the word abortion..."

MP Brad Trost:

Jim Hughes:

Monday, October 29, 2012

I love life

In my cab ride to the pro-life conference in Toronto this weekend, I had a lovely chatty taxi driver from Bangladesh.

He told me about his three daughters who he was obviously very proud of. We chatted about Canada and how lucky we both were to live here and raise our children here.

He asked me why I was in Toronto and I told him I was going to the pro-life conference. He said to me, "Oh I love life".

When we arrived at the hotel he asked me if I were a Christian and I said I was. I asked him if he were a Muslim and he said he was. Then he said to me, "Well then, we have the same God. I love life. God bless you."

Below is another Canadian who loves life, Linda Gibbons receiving the Mother Teresa award at the conference.

Thanks to Maureen Ward for downloading and editing the video. We hope to post more from the conference later.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

The media - are they anti pro-life or am I imagining things?

The media is all in a flap about Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons receiving the Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals.

Andrea Mrozek gives us an excellent synopsis as to the story behind why pro-life heroes Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner keep going to jail. And it isn't because they are criminals:
In 1994, a “temporary” injunction was set up around some abortion clinics in Ontario at the request of abortion providers, violating freedom of expression and assembly. These protest-free bubble zones, generally with a radius of 60 feet from the actual clinic, included public sidewalk space. Linda Gibbons peacefully and quietly enters those boundaries.

Those asking for the injunctions claimed that abortion protesters were intimidating and harassing clients and staff. They argued women who had already made a decision about abortion needed to be protected from messaging that might offend them.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, have long argued that women choosing abortions are not getting full information and support.

It is true that the injunctions go back to a time when abortion protest was more heated, in the direct aftermath of the Morgentaler decision of 1988, when Canada’s abortion laws were struck down.

Today, however, there is a much different movement of abortion protesters outside clinics. They hand out literature and in some cases, openly pray. Linda Gibbons, who has spent nine years in jail over the past two decades for refusing to stay outside of the bubble zones, has signs that read: “Why mom? When I have so much love to give.”

In fact, as Ms. Mrozek says:
"Karla Homolka, Canada’s notorious and violent sexual offender, didn’t spend much more time behind bars than Linda Gibbons has."

Maurice Velacott gave us his reasons for the medals:
"Unlike the Justice Minister, Vellacott was unable to award these medals to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead, so instead the award to those “heroines of humanity” Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons who are trying to protect defenseless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death, and trying to let vulnerable women know that there are other options and support and adoption possibilities. It’s what you would expect in a caring compassionate society."

Hard to argue with that logic.

And my own letter today in teh Ottawa Citizen although I couldn't find it on line:
"I was very pleased to hear that Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have won Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals for the work they do in their advocating for the saving and protection of preborn children. These women, at great risk to themselves, are willing to go to jail for their belief that the killing of the weakest of the weak is wrong.

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, "in spite of the risks to himself—loss of career, prison for years or for life—he decided to perform safe, sterile abortions for women and, at the same time, challenge the law." For Morgentaler's civil disobedience and his belief that abortion should be a "woman's right" at the expense of the unborn child, he won the Order of Canada.

At least Mary Wagner's and Linda Gibbons' civil disobedience is for the purpose of saving lives, not taking lives."

So the summary, of the summary, as to why Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner deserve these medals:

These women are not criminals; Ms. Gibbons spent not much less time in prison than notorious murderer Karla Homolka; Mr. Vellacott couldn't give the medals to dead babies; unlike Henry Morgentaler, Ms. Gibbons' and Ms. Wagner's goals are to save babies and help their mothers, while Morgentaler kills babies and harms their mothers.

So give it a rest media.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Mainstream media helps two Canadian pro-life heroes' stories to become known to Canadians

I think thanks are in order to Glen McGregor and the Ottawa Citizen.

Today McGregor reported that Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have won Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals for the work they do in their advocating for the saving and protection of preborn children.

There is of course, an interesting parallel here to when Henry Morgentaler won the Order of Canada. Like Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons, he also went to jail, and engaged in civil disobedience. Many times. Morgentaler worked long and hard at making abortion just like any another operation, say like, having a wart removed. He did it by civil disobedience and going to jail. Just like Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons.

According to Wikipedia on Morgentaler in prison:
"The province appealed the acquittal. In a move literally without precedent, the jury's acquittal was overturned by five judges on the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1974, who substituted a conviction. The doctor appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada but the court upheld his conviction in a 6 - 3 decision, stating that the danger to women was not immediate.[19][21][22] He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and began serving his sentence in March, 1975.[20]

In 1975, under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the Canadian Parliament changed the law so that an appeals court could not overturn a jury acquittal, although they could order a new trial. This is known as the Morgentaler Amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada.[22][24] The Quebec government set aside their first, wrongful conviction and ordered a new trial on the first charge. Morgentaler was released to await trial.[20]

In 1975, while he was in prison, the Ministry of Justice for Quebec laid a second set of charges against him and he was acquitted by another jury. However, he was already in jail. A political cartoon at the time showed a prison guard pushing Dr. Morgentaler's food tray into his cell and saying, "Congratulations, doctor, you've been acquitted again!"[21] The Ministry of Justice appealed this second acquittal but this time, the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the acquittal (January 19, 1976).[25]

… For his trouble, the unflappable Dr. Morgentaler stood trial, languished in prison, and received numerous death threats. What drove him to take such risks? "The realization that a terrible injustice was being done to women and the conviction that it was necessary to change the situation to provide help for those who needed it," replies the retired physician via email."

So what do these women do that is unlike what Morgentaler did? Well they walk on the sidewalk; they speak to women going into the abortion clinics; they quietly tell these women that someone does care about them; they tell these women that they can get a referral to an organization that will help them with their unborn child. And Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons don't kill unborn children.

It's these peaceful activities that gets Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons jail sentences.

So it is fantastic that the mainstream media is finally getting wind of the extreme injustices perpetrated by our so-called "justice system" against these two women for their compassionate and courageous attempts to help women in need. These two victims of Canada's criminal justice system are heroes indeed, and it is good that Canadians are finally hearing their story.

Like Henry Morgentaler, these two brave women also believe "that a terrible injustice was being done to women and the conviction that it was necessary to change the situation to provide help for those who needed it."

God bless Glen McGregor for helping to get the word out.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Who does your MP work for?

I wish Brad Trost were my MP.

After Motion 312 was defeated, Mr. Trost told his constituents that he--are you ready for this--works for them, and not for Mr. Harper. I am not kidding.

On Octocber 9, 2012 in a piece on his website called "Working for You" (the audacity; the boldness; the chutzpah; what was he thinking?). Mr. Trost said this about the MPs who voted their conscience on the Motion:
"...a majority of Conservative MPs went against Prime Minister Harper’s strongly expressed view on this issue. This vote illustrates a reality in the House of Commons that has often been forgotten. Members of Parliament don’t work for the leader of their respective party. They work for their constituents.

In a parliamentary system like Canada’s, Prime Minister Harper is not my boss, he is the first among equals. The constituents of Saskatoon-Humboldt are my bosses. Whether you agree with my votes or disagree with my votes, you need to let me know because I really do work for you."

I would love to have an MP who worked for me. But alas, no.

I wonder if Mr. Trost will let me adopt him?

Sunday, October 21, 2012

What it means to be pro-life

Father Jerry's homily on Oct 7 tells us about being pro-life on both ends of the life continuum.

After Motion-312 was defeated, Father Jerry went home and wept. He wept for our Prime Minister and he wept for our MPs who voted against the bill. He wept for the babies killed by abortion and he wept for the babies threatened by abortion and who will never see the light of day.

He also spoke about spending many hours with Father Bedard as he lay dying in the hospital.

Listen to his homily. Father Jerry is a true witness to the Gospel of Life. What an example he is for all of us.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Late term abortions statistics - born alive

From 2000 to 2009 in Canada, there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died after it was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn".

This number does not include late term abortions that are born dead (stillbirths).

This data comes from Statistics Canada here.

To see the data for yourself:

1) After you go to the link above, click on "Add/Remove data".

2) Go to "Step 4 - Select: Cause of death" and click on "All" twice (the first click all causes of death to be ticked, and the second click removes all causes). Then scroll down towards the bottom and click only on "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn [P96.4]"

3) Then go to "Step 5 - Select the time frame" and choose from 2000 to 2009.

You can read the descriptions of this abortion code here at CIHI, on page 215.

Here is a screen shot of the data. If you add up the columns you get 491.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Time for a change in Ontario politics

Yes, Dalton McGuinty has resigned and pro-rogued the Ontario Legislature. Good riddance I say.

But what about those Conservatives?

This morning Lowell Green spoke to Conservative MPP, Lisa MacLeod.

Mr. Green and his listeners want the 37 Conservatives to take back the Legislature, show up there, and govern without the Liberals. Better than nothing I guess. But all Ms. MacLeod could do was provide a whole whack of excuses why the Conservatives can't do that, and as listeners observed, she seemed to be just mouthing the party line, sticking to prescribed talking points.

Are we surprised? With the recent slumber party the Conservatives partook in when Mr. McGuinty and company did a stealth attack on the Legislature with the passage of Bill 122, what did we expect this time? Some actual good old-fashioned action, to you know, so something? Apparently not.

When Mr. Hudak did nothing when the snooze fest was happening under his nose with the hiding of abortion statistics, nobody even noticed because the Conservatives were all asleep. They said nothing. They did nothing.

After this happened, I emailed Christine Elliott, the Conservative Health critic. Three times. This is what I asked her:

"As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.

I understand that you told the National Post that as long as the identities of the people involved were protected, there’s no reason to withhold these abortion statistics.

As the Ontario PC health critic, can you tell me why you did not vote against Bill 122, and yet you are now publicly criticizing it? Can you also tell me why not a word was said in the debates or in committee about this censorship? If you are against this censorship, then why did you not speak up at the time it was being debated and reviewed in the Ontario legislature?"

Just like Mr. Hudak who never responded to me, neither did Ms. Elliott. Even after giving her three chances.

So the Conservatives did nothing to stop Mr. McGuinty then, and are doing nothing now to fix the current McGuinty fiasco with his resignation and pro-rogueing of Parliament.

Maybe it's time for a new political party in Ontario to rise up. To do something. To fix the mess. To govern. Or something. Anything.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Education Minister needs to return to school

Dear Ms. Broten,

Can it possibly be true that you told the Canadian Press that:
"Taking away a woman's right to choose could arguably be considered one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take," and that "I don't think there is a conflict between choosing Catholic education for your children and supporting a woman's right to choose."?

Certainly the media reported this in error, and if it did, I apologize for this letter.

However, in the extremely unlikely case that you actually did utter these words, I must inform you with all due respect, that there is nothing misogynist whatsoever with what you euphemistically call "taking away woman's right to choose" when what you really mean, is that it is misogynist "to rip apart a pre-born human being from the safety of its mothers womb in order to kill it". Clearly this is not misogyny. Some call it murder.

You also appear to be very sadly misguided if you can equate ripping apart said pre-born human being, as not being in conflict with the Catholic faith. If you actually believe this, you are sorely uneducated for an education minister regarding the Catholic faith. I strongly suggest you brush up on your Catholic teachings forthwith before you put your other foot into your mouth.

Assuming these allegations are true, I would call on Mr. McGuinty to ask for your resignation immediately, and if they are untrue, I respectfully give you my sincerest apology.

Patricia Maloney

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The pro-abortions are right

Why does the Toronto Star print this drivel (Conservative anti-abortion MP has new ultrasound plan)?

This op-ed's sole purpose is to allow pro-abortion extraordinaire, Heather Mallick, to ridicule, make fun of, and otherwise mock MP Mark Warwara motion M-408 which states:
"That the House condemn discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”

Even just suggesting that sane people might want to condemn sex selection abortion is like drinking bleach to these people. Why is that? Do the pro-abortions think sex selection abortion is okay? Or are they just so caught up in their abortion ideology that they can't even comprehend that it might be something even they can condemn?

If they can't bring themselves to condemn sex-selection abortion, at the very least could they give us a couple of reasons why they can't. Maybe defend their position for a change. You know, with some good old-fashioned arguments. Okay, how about just one argument?

But no, making fun of people with whom they do not agree with is a lot more fun. Reminds me of bullying: let's just figuratively beat the crap out of people who say things we don't agree with. Wow that's funny. Guffaw. Haha. LOL.

Maybe the pro-abortions could use a good old fashioned Dale Carnegie course in how to make friends and influence people.

Wait a minute. What am I saying? On second thought, I changed my mind. Maybe this extreme abortion doctrine is a good thing.

The actual pro-choice people of this world might begin to notice this extreme pro-abortion doctrine and start to rethink whether or not they like being on the same side of the abortion divide with the Heather Mallicks and Joyce Arthurs of this world. Hmm...okay. I changed my mind. Come on Heather. Bring it on. Let us know what you really think.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

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.

Monday, October 8, 2012


Immaculée Ilibagiza is a Rwandan Tutsi who survived the Rwandan genocide.

She has written three remarkable books on her personal experiences of the genocide where most of her family was slaughtered.

I have read her books and she is a remarkable example of courage and love, who was able to forgive those who murdered her family.

Here Immaculée speaks about abortion in this clip Weakest of the Weak:

Immaculée says this about abortion:
"...In the end it is the woman who suffers...abortion is a genocide against the poor of the poorest and the weak of the weakest. Against babies who cannot defend themselves. When we determine who is supposed to live and who is not supposed to live, when we legalize it to make it like something okay, it's sad, there is noone less than another."

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

CCBR launches - Face the Children

Press release from CCBR:

"September 25, 2012: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Anti-Abortion Group Sends Message To MPs on Eve of Motion 312 Vote

The Toronto and Calgary-based anti-abortion group the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: released video of abortion-supporting members of Parliament Nikki Ashton (Churchill, Manitoba) and Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, Ontario) defending abortion in Canada interspersed with gruesome clips of aborted fetuses.

CCBR says it is sending a message to all Members of Parliament ahead of the vote on Motion 312: “If you won’t protect the children, you will face the children.”

“Too long have Canada’s pro-abortion politicians had a free pass while pro-life politicians are viciously attacked,” said executive director Stephanie Gray. “It’s time to show Canadians what they are defending, and who they are betraying.”

The group says the video is just the start of a much larger project they are working on that includes both an online and on the ground component, which they have dubbed “Face the Children.”

“If politicians are going to abandon the most vulnerable Canadians, it’s time their constituents were aware of their position,” said Gray. “And we are prepared to educate voters on what abortion is, and what their MP said about it.”

Monday, September 24, 2012

Jason Kenney will support Motion 312

Cabinet Minister Jason Kenney will vote in favour of Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

Mr. Kenny stated:
"I have said I will vote in favour of the motion and I respect all the point of views of all the ministers and all the MPs...I think we can have a respectful debate on this question and, like I said, the big tradition of all parties in government is to allow a free vote on questions of conscience.”

Surely if Mr. Kenny can vote in favour of a respectful debate, so can other MPs. Let's hope a lot more of them will do so. After all, that's what we are talking about here: Debate. In a democracy. Like Canada. Simple really.

Brian Lilley talks to Linda Gibbons

Question: What do you call a pro-lifer in court?

Answer: Guilty

Watch Brian Liley's interview below Abortion appears to trump everything including free speech with Linda Gibbons. What a national treasure Linda is. I wish I had her guts.


I think our MPs need to look at what the folks over at CCBR are doing.

They might want to rethink whether or not they still want to vote against Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

There's nothing like the unvarnished truth of watching an abortion procedure--juxtaposed with Joyce Arthur speaking about her dogma of "women's rights"--to make you sit up and take notice.

If this is what "women's rights" is all about, could any MP actually vote against the motion?

What about the rest of us. Do we really believe in "women's rights"?

From CCBR's press release:

"Anti-Abortion Group Releases Most Shocking Abortion Footage Yet Leading Abortion Rights Advocate's Words Exposed

September 24, 2012. The Toronto and Calgary-based pro-life organization the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: released a video showing Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, defending abortion intercut with footage of an abortion procedure in-progress and abortion's results.

The video can be viewed here:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"The recent debate on Motion 312 has been dominated by the worst kind of  sophistry from Canada's abortion advocates," explained executive director Stephanie Gray, "So we decided to make a video unmasking the rhetoric so Canadians understand what abortion advocates mean when they say things like 'choice' and 'reproductive freedom.'"

The video, which the pro-life organization promises is the first in a series of many, shows interviews of Ms. Arthur talking about the "social peace" Canada has reached on the abortion issue while playing gruesome footage.

Gray explained, "Canada's abortion advocates have been permitted to talk about abortion for too long without people knowing what 'abortion' actually refers to. From now on, we plan to use video footage of what this horrific procedure actually looks like to show abortion as the act of dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment that it is."

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Pro-life people are not going away

The priests at our parish are unabashedly pro-life. Thank God for that.

This morning we were lucky to hear a pretty pointed pro-life homily from Farther Jerry.

He told us about Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 to create a committee to look at when an unborn child becomes a human being. He told us he called Mr. Woodworth's office Friday night and left him a message to congratulate him on his motion.

He told us about the 40 days for life initiative which starts this week. This is an international campaign of prayer and peaceful witness outside of the world's abortion mills to highlight and defeat the scourge of abortion in our time. This prayer campaign has helped to close abortion clinics, and has saved thousands of babies.

He told us how Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and others have spoken up for the unborn.

Father Jerry wrote his first letter to a Prime Minister when he was 8 years old. He was sitting at the kitchen table and asked his father what abortion was. His father answered him, that's when the government kills babies.

Father Jerry also had a message for Mr. Harper regarding pro-life people. He wants Mr. Harper to know that pro-life people are not going away. That pro-life people have courage. He told us not to let anyone tell us to mind our own business. He told us, this is our business.

We will end abortion. We will do it in God's time. And according to God's plan.

Update on September 25 - Father Jerry's full audio of his Sunday homily:

Friday, September 21, 2012

Who will the MPS listen to?

Check out Ted Gerk's excellent analysis of what Chief Justice Bertha Wilson said about abortion rights and abortion law. And about how Parliament is the place for debate on this subject to take place.

We already know only too well, how many Canadians are influenced by the extreme pro-abortion advocates in this country and it is unfortunate, since much of what they say is a perversion and twisting of reality. As Ted points out the pro-abortions even contradict themselves, changing their tune as they scoot along their merry pro-abortion way.

As a result of this loud and noisy revisionist nonsense, many Members of Parliament are also afraid to allow Canadians to debate abortion on any level, even when the discussion is only about a discussion on when does a child become a human being.

As for the pro-abortions, are they afraid of what might happen if we get to have this discussion? That their abortion rights house of cards might come tumbling down?

Let's hope our MPs use their own consciences today to decide for themselves whether or not Canadians should be allowed to discuss the point of Stephen Woodworth's motion.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

New reality TV show

In a new reality TV show to be aired this fall called Woman to decide what she does with her body, we see a rare and unusual pairing of the NDP and Conservatives.

I take you now to the the entertainment capital of the world (Parliament Hill) where the show's pilot was taped. 

The first show opens up with Ms. Francoise Boivin standing in the House of Commons, looking admiringly at Mr. Stephen Harper.

We are transfixed as we listen to what this NDP MP is telling Mr. Harper about Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

This is what she said:
“I appreciate that the prime minister…has clearly stated that there will be no support for M-312...before the birth there is absolutely no point for me to tell you what I think because the law in Canada is it’s up to the woman to decide what she does with her body,”

Yes TV watchers you heard it right. Ms. Boivin likes what the Prime Minister is doing. I am not kidding. And you heard it here first.

What a show this will be. The NDP and the Conservatives. Together. For the very first time. If I hadn't heard and seen the taping of this groundbreaking show for myself, I wouldn't have believed it.

With a season opener like that, this reporter is unclear as to what we can expect next. Because Parliament has only just begun. But I think we can expect a lot of high drama during this session.

Maybe in upcoming shows, Ms. Boivin will learn that there are actually two distinct bodies when a woman becomes pregnant. How will she react? Will she get it? What will she do? Will she change her tune? Will she become a Social Conservative? We just don't know.

Which is why it is really really really important that you stay tuned. To this station. This fall. I am not kidding.

(Disclaimer. This story is pure fantasy. Or not. You be the judge. It was inspired when I read Daniel Proussalidis PM Sides with NDP on ‘human life’ motion)