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."