Pro-abortion violence never takes a break

It is a well known fact the the pro-abortions are violent against pro-life people. It is also a well know fact that the police are no friends to pro-life people. If I had to ask myself why this is so, I would say the pro-aborts get their marching orders from leading pro-aborts, like Justin Trudeau and other politicians like Jim Watson who discriminate against us at every possible turn.

Need more information on this? Read on.

Reprinted with permission from Alliance for Life Ontario.

Now here is the Thing…..

Here is the story as recounted to me regarding what I define as an assault at a 40 days for Life Vigil in Ontario.

“There were five of us standing at the vigil site, keeping 10 feet in between each of us. Two young women and a man (mid twenties, all of them) drive up in a car. They came out with a roll of paper, came up to us and said that we were “f**** ridiculous” and how dare we stand there, so they were going to block us. 

I replied, oh let me move my box for you and then instructed those with me to go to the various corners. She said, “What, you’re going to just keep moving?” I replied yes and she says “Well we’ll follow you.” I said, that’s fine. They rolled out their paper in front of me and I (stupidly, I know I shouldn’t have.) I didn’t even think walked up, placed my arms over it and held my sign in front of it (my arms were pushing the paper down). She told me to stop touching their property, so I lifted my hands up so that I wasn’t touching it, but my sign was still able to be read in front of it. 

She came up to me and slapped my face and pushed me away. As I was taking out my phone to take pictures and call the police, she grabbed my sign and hit me with it and then grabbed my phone from me and threw it. I went and got it and she fought me over it again, but I kept it. She hit me with the roll from the paper and was yelling at me that she didn’t care if I posted about it on social media. I responded that I was calling the police and then they left. 

The police say that their [perpetrators] reports, which were similar but not identical, showed that they didn’t go over the story together first, say that I ripped up their paper (here the officer inserts, “which was ripped”) and got up into her face so she pushed me away and then I put my camera in her face so she knocked it down the hill. 

The officer said that because it’s a controversial issue, things are bound to escalate and because I engaged with them by getting in their face (despite me telling her I didn’t) things like this can’t go to court. It’s a matter of he says, she says, so that’s that. “I got a call from the officer that came out when that woman slapped me; here’s what she said: 

They aren’t pressing charges because they say that I ripped up their paper and got into her face with my cell phone and she only pushed me out of her way and threw my cell phone because it was in her face. 

Also, because of the type of situation, it being so controversial it makes people react more, which of course doesn’t excuse it, but that is how it goes. The officer says that it’s a case of he says, she says, so there really isn’t any point moving forward. She’s says if even if I want to press charges, she won’t. They do have a written report so if she ever does anything again, she’ll be red flagged.”

So there is the story and I would like to make a couple of observations. In the same city within a couple of weeks either side of this incident a passenger on a bus slapped the driver and a customer at a grocery store spat on a worker – both incidents had details but also images that the police could use to identify the person and verify what happened. Charges have been made and are pending in both these cases because of the images together with the details provided by witnesses. Going back to the vigil incident – the woman was found because a photo was taken of the departing car which got the number plate – there were also 4 witnesses at the vigil who can verify our pro-lifer’s account but apparently were not trusted to tell the “Truth”.

However, it seems that because of the controversial nature of abortion we are to expect that “people react more”? Maybe that is true but I for one do not expect the police to react less. These folks drove to the vigil site intentionally and also intentionally endeavoured to”block” the pro-life message, used foul language and allegedly assaulted a young pro-life woman. I absolutely believe the account above and really wonder how police 50 years ago took witness statements and details and followed up with charges, minus the “images’ so readily available today which seem to mean everything?!!!! I shake my head that “there really isn’t any point moving forward” and charges would not be laid by police even if the victim wants them.

What this tells me is that the police no longer find pro-life Canadians credible witnesses or appear to doubt that anyone would actually tell the truth in this particular case, because of abortion’s controversial nature. Charges will not be pressed as it seems we are to expect people to react more in this circumstance – our only recourse is to have a video of the act itself. Now forgive the pun but that really seems like a “cop out” to me.

I know that I do not need to remind the pro-lifers in this province about the fact that we have 8 “bubble zones” around specific abortion facilities – well do you know how that came about? Claims were made by abortion staff in Ottawa that a pro-lifer had spat upon a couple as they entered the facility. Just for your information – no video, no image just claims or allegations that this had happened. Those allegations were enough to get the Mayor of Ottawa to contact the Attorney General of Ontario and set in motion, at a pace greater than the speed of light, the legislation “safe access zones”that unconstitutionally, bars pro-life witness outside these facilities within certain specific parameters. What is also amazing was that a report had been published a few months earlier saying that “harrassment” at abortion facilities “was rare” in Canada. So let us recap – claims of someone spitting on someone entering an abortion facility were enough to have draconian and unconstitutional legislation drawn up, debated and passed before you could say “”EH”. Even with evidence from the pro-abortion side that harassment was rare. I would remind you of the fact that we had already and still have laws to cover any assault of this kind if it had indeed happened outside the abortion facility.

One cannot help thinking that if you are pro-abortion your claims or allegations will be taken seriously even without “images”. However as a pro-life Canadian it is just “he says she says” and by the way get ready because people react more because abortion is controversial! We cannot nor should we stand for this in 2020.

I would like to end this piece with a story from my early days at the Scott abortion facility in Toronto where we used to go once a week. There was a particularly obnoxious facility “guard” who decided as I was alone at the time (my colleague was using the washroom) he would taunt me. He came out of the facility with a billboard with caricatures of pro-lifers on it and got right into my face asking me which one was me. He was a good 6 inches taller than me and he leaned down to me, I could feel his breath on my face and inside my heart was beating wildly, but I looked at him and said “does your mother know this is how you treat women?” It was the first thing that came into my head and it stunned him because he went back inside the facility. Needless to say the two police officers present at the time did absolutely nothing to come to my defense.

I am not really blaming the police then or now because they also have to work in an insane politically correct world. However, whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life your claims should be taken seriously with or without images and people should not be excused for violent behaviour because we and apparently the police expect them to react more when it is a controversial issue.

Priests for Life Canada support incremental legislation

Priests for Life Canada supports incremental legislation. They also support the weneedaLAW.ca campaign.



As far as I know Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Canada still do not support incremental legislation. It's too bad they don't.

It would be nice if we could all work together to obtain some legal limits for the pre-born children of this country. I would love to see a ban on late-term-abortions in Canada. Or on sex-selection abortions. Of course we will continue to work for accomplishing this. With CLC and AFLO, or without them.

Gestational abortion laws are moral and logical

Alliance for Life Ontario has responded to the gestational legislation approach to abortion.

I am concerned with this statement. Many pro-life people do support a gestational approach, an approach that is clearly not intrinsically immoral, as Archbishop Miller has already stated, and confirmed by Cardinal Collins, and Priests for Life Canada. Yet AFLO continues to say there is something morally wrong with this approach.

 Archbishop Miller said:

"Under the conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73, it is morally licit to work for and to vote for legislation, including gestational legislation, which limits the harmful effects of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion. 

At the same time, it is also morally licit to withhold support for gestational legislation — and other incrementalist legislative strategies intended to limit access to abortion — if, after prudent reflection, one is convinced that it is an unwise legislative strategy. 

The conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73 can be applied to the situation in Canada today with regard to gestational legislation. The Catholic faithful are free to support such legislation in good conscience. This does not mean, however, that Catholics are compelled to support gestational legislation. 

We pray that the prolife movement may not be divided in spirit by disagreements regarding the practical wisdom of gestational legislation. We implore all within the movement to refrain from questioning the good will or motives of those who have taken a different stand from their own on this issue."

Respected spiritual leaders have told us that a gestational approach is not an inherently immoral strategy, but a matter of prudential judgement. AFLO/CLC continues to contradict this. Saying that a gestational approach is immoral and intrinsically evil, judges these spiritual leaders as acting immorally. It also judges my actions as being immoral. That is what it means to support an immoral act: one is acting immorally. This is troubling.

In this latest statement, AFLO brings up a drowning baby analogy and says:

"Some supporters of gestational legislation have compared the present abortion situation in Canada with the scenario of two drowning children. “Aren’t you going to save one?” they ask. This is so misleading."

I don't know what is misleading about this at all. I actually think the analogy doesn't go far enough. Let me expand upon it.

I am standing by a river with a friend. We see two babies drowning.

I know that I will probably only have time to save one baby so I want to jump in and save her. I do this knowing that the other baby will probably drown. At least I know I can probably save one of them.

But my friend believes it would be immoral to save only one of those babies because both babies equally deserve to live. So when I attempt to save one baby, my friend pulls me back because she knows there is only time to save one baby and she believes it’s wrong to save only one baby.

Not only does my friend not help me to save the one baby, but she also actively intervenes to prevent me from saving the one baby. As a result, both babies drown. I could  probably have saved one of them if my friend did not believe that it was intrinsically immoral to save only one baby.

My friend has actively thwarted my efforts to save a drowning baby’s life. I am devastated.

This is exactly how I feel when anti-gestational pro-lifers try to persuade other pro-lifers that gestational limits are intrinsically immoral; I feel like they are thwarting our efforts to save lives.

I urge those who believe setting a gestational limit on abortion is intrinsically evil and immoral, to re-read Archbishop Miller's entire statement and discern for themselves how they regard gestational legislation.

Bishops said we must protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible

I have just read the Bishop's statement that CLC refers to in this entry.

CLC states in their statement that the Bishops said this:

“We are particularly relieved that the gestational approach has been rejected. The concept is offensive and unprincipled because it presumes that human life is more worthy of protection at one stage than at another".

What CLC doesn't say, is the other pertinent statements about the Bishops' thoughts on gestational legislation. All emphasis are mine.

"While Catholics may not favor abortion or any proposal which seeks to weaken existing legal protection of the unborn child. Nor may they advocate that there be no legal protection. However, when it is the only available or feasible political option, support may be given to legislation which attempts, if only imperfectly, to restore protection or strengthen existing protection. In this case, they must continue to work for complete protection and to express publicly their opposition to abortion.

As we already know with our current 9 month abortion law, a gestational law of any length, although "imperfect" would be "feasible".

The Bishops continue:

Questions as to the feasibility and whether the legislation improves or worsens the legal position of the unborn child, are always matters of prudential judgment where certitude is not possible.

In a country as diversified as ours, in matters of religion and ideology, Catholic politicians must assess the legal and political realities they face and work for the law which will provide the maximum possible protection for unborn children."

This is exactly what a gestational law would accomplish: the "maximum possible protection for unborn children" given that a total ban on abortion would not be accepted by the country.

And this:

"We urge your Committee to draft a law which will protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible. It is understood, however, that as bishops, it is not our role to suggest in detail the best possible legislative solution..."

Now this is interesting. At the end of the Bishop's statement, CLC/AFLO makes its own comments on Bill C-43, saying this:

"Finally, Bill C-43 sets no time restrictions on “terminating pregnancies” and is, therefore, worse than a Bill which would have restricted abortions to 12 or 16 or 20 weeks of gestation. In fact, Bill C-43 is the worst gestational law possible.

CLC is saying they would prefer (at that time in 1991) a limit at 12 or 16 or 20 weeks gestation over no limit. Yet we have no limit today. Therefore CLC should (by their own words) accept a 12 or 16 or 20 week limit. In fact, the reality is that today, we already have a gestational law. And that gestational limit is the point in gestation when the baby is born, i.e. at the end of gestation, and so a 12 or 16 or 20 week gestational limit is far preferable than our current gestational limit of 40 weeks.

Then CLC ends with this self fulfilling prophesy:

"In view of these facts, the pro-life groups said, it is better to continue without a law while working for a pro-life one, with government help, or otherwise by means of private member bills, or through elections. In the meanwhile pro-lifers can maintain a conscience untarnished by surrender or submission to evil. And from the point of view of political tactics, supporting this bill is equivalent to ending pro-life legislation for the next 10-20 years or more, because every politician in the country will claim that it was the best attainable and refuse to do anything more."

Well we've surpassed the 10-20 years, in fact it will be about 24 years and counting...

Right now abortion is already legal for all nine months. Gestational legislation is a lot better than what we have now. According to CLC's philosophy, we are guaranteed to wait forever for something to change.

On the whole of it, I believe that CLC has taken the Bishop's statements on gestational legislation out of context.

Gestational abortion laws are not immoral

This week I came across a joint statement by Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario. It was titled "WHY THE CASE FOR GESTATIONAL ABORTION LAWS IS MORALLY AND LOGICALLY INCOHERENT".

The title of the document sent off warning bells for me. I--along with many other pro-life people and pro-life organizations--am in favour of gestational, or incremental abortion laws.

The statement says that a gestational law is "intrinsically evil", and that a "gestational law is immoral". If this is true, then I would be a supporter of something both intrinsically evil and immoral. This is not the case.

As I continued to read the joint statement, I became more and more disturbed. The document itself isn't on line, but I'd like to quote a few paragraphs from it.

"we will never propose or support a gestational abortion law for Canada. We will never conclude that we must accept what is intrinsically evil so that some good may be achieved. Specifically, we reject the argument made to us by some pro-lifers that the faint and unrealistic prospect of the right to life of some unborn children being recognized in the Criminal Code of Canada at the current time justifies setting aside our longstanding opposition to affirming, in the same law, that some other unborn children may be lawfully killed." 

"A deliberate decision to propose, support, or vote for a gestational abortion law is a behaviour that is in itself immoral. Even if such a law might have some good effects, we can always refrain from engaging in such conduct altogether when to do so would itself not be immoral. If serious harm results from our refusal to participate in such conduct, we are not morally responsible for such consequences because no one can be morally required to sin. Our goal of establishing in civil law the right to life of all unborn children does not justify our use of evil means to accomplish that goal." 

"To counsel another person to choose an action as the lesser of two evils is immoral if both are moral evils, especially if the alleged “lesser evil” is an intrinsic evil." 

"We simply observe that a gestational abortion law would still affirm that a sub-class of unborn children may be lawfully killed, regardless of the motives of any particular legislator who may have voted for it, or of any pro-life activist who supported its enactment."

I respect a point of view different from my own. I believe that two people fighting for the same cause--the legal protection of pre-born children--can adhere to different strategies and ways of achieving the same end. For me to respect your viewpoint doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and vice versa. Both strategies are valid, and neither is morally or intrinsically evil.

I don't believe it is at all helpful though, for a pro-life organization to come out and attack another pro-life world view.

What is also troubling, is that this is an organizational statement, and not simply the view of a single person. It demeans and marginalizes pro-lifers who do not subscribe to CLC/AFLO's position.

This statement implicitly judges me as being immoral and supporting intrinsic evil. I am not and I do not. I am confident that my views are perfectly in line with Cardinal Collins, Archbishop Miller, Priests for Life Canada, and my own spiritual director who is a Jesuit Priest and Canon Lawyer.

The other concern is that the statement can lead people--who might otherwise support gestational legislation--away from supporting a gestational approach, because they wrongly assume that if two large pro-life groups believe it to be wrong, then it must be wrong. This is very troubling indeed.

I believe in gestational legislation. Others do not. My conscience and my respected religious leaders agree with me. If others do not believe in gestational legislation as a valid strategy, that is fine. But making up reasons that are untrue to argue one's case, is not the way to persuade others to your viewpoint.

Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask

There's a really good debate going on over at LifeSiteNews on abortion incrementalism. It is in response to two articles posted there:

Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

Now it is interesting to note that both these articles criticize a gestational approach to limiting abortion in Canada, and to date I have never read an article at LifeSiteNews in favour of the gestational approach. That being said, the debate is going on is spite of this, through readers who are commenting for, and against, this approach.

What struck me about the comments, is that many people think that Canada has no abortion law, because we have no statute law, per se, that restricts abortion.

But as one commenter, "Jeaneanne1306" points out, in 10 different ways, Canada does have an abortion law.

Here are excerpts from "Jeaneanne1306" comments for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions.

You can read the full discussion at the links provided.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

"1) Jeananne1306

Some commenters have been saying that Canada has no abortion law. Actually Canada DOES have an abortion law...and it is a completely PERMISSIVE one. The law is the sum total of our statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code which excludes preborn children from the law's protection via section 223) and the Supreme Court rulings (most notably the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code.) There are also provincial laws: the Access to Abortion Services Act in BC; abortion is mentioned in the NB Medical Services Act regarding funding; abortion also made it's way into an Ontario statute earlier this year (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), where abortion was given a special status over and above any other 'medical service' in the province; there may be other provincial laws as well.

2) Jeananne1306

In the Canadian context, a law that would simply restrict abortion (what some people call "incremental" laws or "imperfect" laws, whether a gestational limit or some other type of restriction) is not a "compromise." A compromise can only happen if each side gives up something to the other side. A bill that simply restricted abortion in some way, and didn't make Canada's existing situation any more pro-abortion than it already is, would not be a compromise. As I understand, Priests for Life Canada's statement was about "incremental" legislation and gestational limits rather than about compromise legislation.

3) Jeananne1306

Mr. Smeaton is quoted as saying that Pope John Paul II's teaching in EV 73.3 "does not apply to bills which explicitly allow abortion in certain circumstances, which gestational bills do, since the pope had already condemned such legislation." Pope John Paul II did not actually condemn gestational legislation. What the Pope was condemning in the previous paragraph of EV 73 was a law that PERMITS abortion. A law that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada where abortion is already legally permitted right up until birth would actually PROHIBIT abortions beyond that gestational limit, thus "limiting the harm" of abortion. Thus EV 73.3 applies in the case of a bill that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada and thus can be licitly supported.

4) Jeananne1306

Today's Criminal Code permits abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy. It makes "unjust and discriminatory distinctions of children" based on whether they live inside or outside their mothers' bodies. Some would say that is unethical. If a 20-week limit bill were being voted on in Canada's Parliament, a vote in favour of such a bill is a vote against the status quo of legal abortion for the full 9 months and a vote in favour of prohibiting abortions past 20 weeks (the legal status of abortion before 20 weeks remains the same in either case.) Some people might feel they cannot in good conscience continue to allow the status quo of legal abortion right up until birth to go unchallenged."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

"5) Jeananne1306

Hopefroeurope, I don't see how saving babies past a certain gestational age is similar to negotiating with terrorists. When you negotiate with terrorists, you are giving in to their demands in exchange for something you want. However,setting a gestational limit (e.g. 20 weeks) on abortion in Canada saves the lives of babies after that age limit (something we want) without giving anything away (the babies before 20 weeks are being killed either way, with or without the gestational age limit). I'd really like to understand how you can equate this with negotiating with terrorists. Can you please explain?

6) Jeananne1306

Not necessarily, Fred. If you already had a law that said "abortion shall be permitted up to the 24th week" and you changed it to "abortion shall be permitted up to the 20th week" (thus making the law more RESTRICTIVE), then that change is a good thing. Alternatively, if you already had a law that said "Abortion shall be illegal after 16 weeks" and you changed it to say "Abortion shall be illegal after 20 weeks" (thus making the law more PERMISSIVE), then that change is a bad thing. Whether a change in the law is good or bad depends on whether the change makes the law more restrictive or more permissive than the previous law.

7) Jeananne1306

I agree with Professor Masson that it is wrong to kill some babies in order to save others. However, setting a gestational limit on abortion in Canada does NOT mean some babies will be killed in order to save others. There is no tradeoff going on, because the existing abortion law in Canada already allows ALL babies regardless of gestational age to be killed by abortion. A gestational limit will SAVE the babies that are past the gestational limit. The babies before the gestational limit are already legally being killed today, and a gestational limit does not change that.

8) Jeananne1306

I completely agree with you, hopefroeurope, we should NOT accept unethical laws. And that is precisely why some Canadians want to change Canada’s existing unethical law, the Criminal Code, which (as I have previously mentioned in comments posted earlier) permits the killing of children right up until the point of birth. And one way to improve this unethical situation is to amend the law so that it protects children at some point prior to birth by setting a gestational limit on abortion that the public would support and which could actually pass into law. If there is not the democratic support for something, it won’t pass into law. The end result would still be an unethical law because some babies would still not be protected, but the CHANGE to the law to grant protection to more children IS ethical, because it limits the harm of abortion.

9) Jeananne1306

Actually, prolifeJ, we do have an abortion law. As I have already noted in response to Jeff, all of Canada's case law and statute law constitute Canada's abortion law. A notable example of case law is the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children. Section 223 of the Criminal Code excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the protection afforded by the homicide offences and other offences against "persons." So except for one narrow protection that still exists in the Criminal Code (section 238 which makes it an offence to kill a child "in the act of birth"), there is no protection for children before they are born. So our Criminal Code already codifies in law the permission to kill preborn children, i.e. abortion.

And speaking of defunding abortion, prolifeJ, would you support a law in Ontario (where almost all, if not all, abortions are currently fully funded) that would defund all abortions except in the case of rape?

10) Jeananne1306

Jeff, firstly, a law that permits abortion does exist in the Criminal Code: section 223 excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the law's protection. So in fact we already have a law that, as you say, separates those who can be killed from those who can't--and that line is drawn when the child has completely proceeded from the mother's body (i.e. the 'born alive' rule). In addition, we have case law (most notably the1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children). Canada's "abortion law" is the sum total of the statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code) and the case law. (There are also some provincial laws dealing with abortion.) What we don't have today in the Criminal Code is a RESTRICTIVE abortion law--it is a completely PERMISSIVE abortion law."

If that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.

Why ‘weneedaLAW’ in Canada’s abortion debate

By John Hof

Special to The B.C. Catholic

It has been 42 years since Pierre Elliott Trudeau sent Canada down the path of liberalized abortion laws. As a result we are today the only democratic country on the planet with absolutely NO law on abortion at all.

Any unborn child, at any time during its nine months in the womb, can be aborted for any reason, or no reason at all, and 100 per cent of the costs are picked up by taxpayers.

We are in the dubious company of only North Korea and China when it comes to the status of the children in the womb. I am not at all comfortable in this company.

This shocks and dismays most Canadians, who think something needs to be done. More than 77 per cent believe there needs to be some regulation and restriction on this brutality.

A vast majority believe this can be done by addressingthe problem through legislation: making it illegal to commit abortion after some point in the pregnancy.

Therein lies the problem. We know the unborn are human from the moment of conception, and for that reason should be protected from harm by the laws of a civilized society. But how can we move from having absolutely no law to having complete protection? This is a dilemma I am sure even King Solomon would have had trouble with.

Enter into the discussion weneedaLAW.ca. This new political group announced as their mission “to build a groundswell of support among the Canadian public for federal abortion legislation.”

Some might say we in the pro-life movement have been trying to do this since the Trudeau days.

How have our effortsworked out so far? More than 4 million children have died by abortion since 1969. Maybe, just perhaps, we need to be open to a new strategy.

What makes the weneedaLAW group different? These young people are thesurvivors of abortion. They know that one-quarter of their generation have lost their lives to “choice.”

They want more than just idle words and rhetoric. They want to stop the killing in their lifetime, and they have a strategy to do it.

Naturally they need help and encouragement, and they received that when they gained an endorsement from Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB, May 16.

“Canada does need a law, and this initiative is a helpful first step toward correcting an unacceptable legislative void that is unique among democratic nations. I encourage Canadians to support it and pray for its success,”said the archbishop.

There are some who will say that unless a law protects all pre-born children in thewomb it is not good enough. I could not agree more. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where all pre-born children are at risk, and we need to start granting them protection at some point, knowing that ultimately our desire and mandate is to protect them all.

Protecting and saving some may not be “good enough,” but it is far better than having open season on all the unborn. Common sense tells us we need to start somewhere to turn back the tide.

The archbishop understands this; the youth of today understand this. It is high time all of us in the pro-life movement understood this and fell in line with this strategy.

If we don’t, we risk spending the next 40 years on the outside of the political spheres of influence. We will continue to be taken for granted by political parties and their leaders, and by individual members of  Parliament who “refuse to raise the abortion issue.” The unborn will continue to die at the rate of more than 100,000 per year.

Saving some children is not a compromise of our belief that all life is sacred. Politics is the art of the possible. Prudence says that there are opportunities to save some children in Canada.

We need to start somewhere, and the archbishop has just indicated a good place to start taking that “first step” is working with weneedaLAW.ca.

John Hof is the director of Campaign Life Coalition B.C. Reprinted with permission from the author

Abortion incrementalism: the series

Here are all posts on this topic (Last updated April 12, 2013):

Archbishop Prendergast advocates helping pregnant women and placing restrictions on abortion (June 4, 2010)

Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510 (September 23, 2010)

Priests for Life Canada urges all Catholics to contact MPs to vote for Roxanne's law  (December 9, 2010)

Abortion incrementalism (May 27, 2011)

More on abortion incrementalism (June 2, 2011)

More on abortion incrementalism (continued) (June 5, 2011)

Why does Canada have no laws protecting unborn children?   (August 29, 2011)

Archbishop Miller says we need an abortion law  (May 17, 2012)

How to get there from here (May 27, 2012)

Abortion law unlikely without change in tactics  (By Dr. Paul Ranalli, June 3, 2012, with numerous comments that continue the discussion)

Why ‘weneedaLAW’ in Canada’s abortion debate  (By John Hof, director of Campaign Life Coalition B.C, June 10, 2012)

Banning third trimester abortions (July 13, 2012)

Priests for Life Canada and what they support  (July 17, 2012)

Banning late-term abortions: it's time  (July 20, 2012)

Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask  (August 5, 2012)

Archbishop Miller's statement on gestational abortion legislation (September 7, 2012)

Gestational Legislation: a morally sound strategy (March 21, 2013) 

Abortion law unlikely without change in tactics

All-or-nothing approach by some pro-lifers to force policy against ‘choice’ hasn’t worked

By Paul Ranalli
Special to The B.C. Catholic

Within the community of those who work to promote respect for the innocent unborn, few can claim to match the passion, commitment, and work ethic of Jakki Jeffs, executive director of Alliance For Life.

That said, what are we to make of her latest iteration of the “all-or-nothing” approach to pro-life political action?

Many of us share her unwavering gaze on the goal of “legislated protection of life for every Canadian citizen in or out of the womb.” Ah, but how to get there? How to translate undoubted conviction into concrete achievement?

Sadly, the answer, by any objective standard, would not be to follow the political tactics exhibited over the years by AFL. While these groups do much good work in pro-life education and awareness, their legislative achievements have been an utter failure.

The only thing “amazing” about the “45 years of struggle” by Ms. Jeffs’ stream of the pro-life movement is just how little has been achieved from so much effort.

Any successful social movement allows for the unfettered efforts of many different streams, effecting a sort of “parallel processing,” in engineering terms. A social campaign will not long survive, much less succeed, with the kind of internecine sniping expressed by Ms. Jeffs toward the “we needaLAW” campaign.

Sadly, this is just the latest example of the demoralizing top-down criticism of honest pro-life efforts in this country by those who appear more interested in hegemony than actual political success.

Most pro-lifers would never dream of interfering with the good work of others in the field. However their tactics may differ. Yet some members have never been shy about offering their unsolicited advice, or worse.

A Chinese proverb states that a 1,000-mile journey begins with the first step. Apparently some in the Canadian pro-life movement believe otherwise.

However consider these moments in history: while Mahatma Gandhi demanded freedom for the Indian people from their British colonizers, his pivotal action was marching his supporters to the coast to make salt without paying the salt tax.

While Martin Luther King demanded full personal and political equality for black people in America, a legendary first step was a request to be able to sit in any seat of a city bus in Birmingham, Ala.

Closer to home, a Montreal general practitioner who once demanded unrestricted legal access to abortion for women began to perform abortions one at a time, and he got himself thrown into jail repeatedly.

To some in the pro-life movement these individuals might be seen as betraying the cause, because they attempted to achieve their ultimate goal in incremental steps. They did not exhibit the purity of demanding nothing less than an instantaneous law proclaiming full victory for their cause.

They must have had their tails between their legs, too. After all, what did they ever achieve?

Paul Ranalli is a neurologist from Toronto. Reprinted with permission from the author.

Will this be Harper's legacy?

In response to Local organization wants national debate on abortion and Alliance For Life Ontario's We Want the Debate campaign, I wrote the following letter to the Guelph Mercury:

Canada needs an abortion debate

October 31, 2011

We need a national debate on abortion. The reality is that if we shut down this debate, we shut down freedom of speech and we harm our democracy.

When our political leaders refuse to debate an issue that 52 per cent of Canadians want to have we, wittingly or unwittingly, are causing harm to our country. That the subject matter is abortion should make no difference. If the subject matter were murder, rape, women’s rights or what we teach our children in school, would we censure those debates? Of course not. Then why are we not allowed to debate abortion?

If Stephen Harper does not allow Canadians to have the abortion debate that we want to have, he is complicit in jeopardizing our democracy. This, in fact, may result in the law of unintended consequences and Harper may end up as being known as the prime minister who shut down democracy in Canada.

Somehow I don’t think Harper would be very pleased with a legacy such as this.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

More on abortion incrementalism

MaryCatherine said:
"I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510."

I replied to her comment with this:

This link shows how numerous pro-lifers opposed the bill. One in particular is Geoff Cauchi, who as this article says, is an adviser to Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). Cauchi is also president of Alliance for Life Ontario (AFLO) and AFLO never came out in support of the bill. This article also says that "Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women":
http://www.theinterim.com/features/bill-c-510-creates-controversy-within-pro-life-community/

CLC later said that CLC recommended MPs vote for C-510, but that CLC wanted to amend the wording of the Bill when it went to committee. In other words, they did not support the bill as it was written. They wanted it to go to committee so it could be changed to their liking. And how realistic would that be, given how many pro-abortion MPs we have in Canada? See this link:
http://www.lsn.ca/news/first-hour-of-debate-on-roxannes-law-takes-place-in-canadian-parliament/

See these two articles by Cauchi as well, they are long, but leave no doubt that Cauchi did not support Bill-C510:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_1037.shtml
http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/abortion/article_1091.shtml

I can only conclude from all of this, that there really wasn't the necessary support--at least not from the "political arm of the pro-life movement"--that would have helped the bill to pass. Given the pro-abortion opposition we face, it takes a lot more enthusiastic and active support than this to have any chance of success.

The following groups did campaign proactively in support of c-510:

Priests For Life Canada,
http://www.priestsforlifecanada.com/English/News_Events/Roxannes_Law/Roxannes_Law_Parish_Letter_EN.pdf

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada,
http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/action-items/current-action-requests/966-1-action-item-support-bill-c-510-roxannes-law

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=7516

4MyCanada
http://4mycanada.ca/Emails/

And yes you are correct, the Bill was defeated in the House of Commons. Canada still has no legal restrictions on abortion.

Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510

Why, as a Catholic, I cannot support Bill C-510 By Geoffrey F. Cauchi, LL.B. Issue: October 2010
It is disturbing that Geoffrey Cauchi has publicly come out against Bill C-510 Roxanne's law, a bill that would make it a criminal offense for anyone to coerce a woman to abort her unborn child. This is a positive pro-life bill because it will protect some babies. It will protect a woman who decides to keep her baby. It does this by allowing her to press charges against someone who tries to coerce her to abort.

(Mr. Cauchi's article also notes that: "the opinions expressed in this article are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the pro-life organizations of which he is a member or leader." This may be so, but Mr. Cauchi is the president of Alliance for Life Ontario. Therefore the optics of his non-support for this bill will be very influential on the pro-life community, even if these are only his personal opinions.)

It does not need to be stated that Canada has no abortion law and that an abortion can be legally procured in Canada at any time during the nine month pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. All pro-lifers are extremely well aware of this fact. We also know from past experience that all attempts to enact limitations on abortion have met with zero success. It's time to make some progress.

Mr. Cauchi says that according to Catholic teaching:
"if a proposed Bill is an intrinsically unjust law, it cannot, in good conscience, be publicly supported by Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium. In the Papal Encyclical, Evangelium vitae (EV, 73.2), Pope John Paul II, citing section 22 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), confirmed long-standing Church teaching when he said: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” (the “No Exceptions Statement”)."

Mr. Cauchi then goes on to make his case that this is an unjust law, essentially because some unborn children will not be saved. Yet saving the lives of some of our children is better than condemning all of the aborted ones. Bill C-510 will do this.

With all due respect to Mr. Cauchi, he is a banking lawyer and not a moral theologian. I must therefore defer to what the moral theologians and ethicists have to say on the subject of incrementalism in abortion. I refer the reader to an article written by William E. May, “The Misinterpretation of John Paul II’s Teaching in Evangelium vitae n.73,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Winter 2006, Vol. 6 No. 4. p. 705. Mr. May makes some key observations on incrementalism. Here are some excerpts:

On page 705:
"In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, John Paul II takes up a "particular problem of conscience" that can occur "[when] a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on" (n. 73). He then makes the following most important statement: In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil effect. (n. 73)"

On page 707:
"But John Paul II judges that the kind of political decisions which can be licit do not have as their moral objects permitting or authorizing abortions, or the intentional killing of unborn children. Rather, the object that morally specifies the legislator’s act in this situation is to extend the protection of law to the lives of unborn children who are not protected under existing legislation or under alternative proposed legislation, which this legislation is intended to replace. This is evidently a good moral object."

On Page 713:
"Ratzinger writes: According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as is possible. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment.19"

A few months ago Cardinal Ouellette and Archbishop Prendergrast said in a CTV interview:
"I think we need to look at the issue of how many abortions there are in our country and so Cardinal Ouellet and I last week took the tact of saying, look alright we aren’t going to change the law at present anyway, so let’s do something about reducing the number. If everyone says there should be as few abortions as possible, what are we doing for that? Why are we happy that the number is staying more or less static? You know in a country like this? The Cardinal gave the statistics that with 10,000,000 people in Belgium, they have fewer abortions than they have in Quebec where they have 8,000,000 people. Why is that? Who would not be opposed to reducing the number of abortions? (emphasis added) I don't think anybody...Well we would like to change the law, I would like to change the law and at least put some restrictions on it at least something like you have in Belgium where after the first trimester there aren’t any abortions or generally there aren’t any."

We can reduce the number of abortions by supporting bill C-510. Once we have some protection for the unborn, we know the job isn't finished--we will then move on to the next bill. If we insist on waiting for the perfect bill that completely eliminates all abortions, and decide that is the only acceptable objective, our children will continue to be destroyed.

If an incremental bill can save one child of the 100,000 killed each year through abortion, this bill will have been worth it.