Ottawa Citizen agrees to change policy regarding pro-life letters

I think it's time we insist that newspapers use the word "pro-life" to describe us. Newspapers usually call us "anti-abortion". I took issue with this policy last week when I wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen after they changed a letter I wrote where I used "pro-life" to "anti-abortion". 

I then contacted the Citizen and explained that I had a big problem with this change.

Then ensued a correspondence between myself and Christina Spencer, the editorial pages editor. She said they would review their policy of using the word "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life" after I explained how unfair this policy was to us, since we call ourselves "pro-life". And that, just like how editors call themselves editors and not "word-changers", we like to be called "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

In putting forth our position on calling ourselves "pro-life" I then explained:

"Cardinal Collins never used the word abortion in his homily. He used the words "Sanctity of Life", Gift of Life", "Cause of Life", "March for Life", etc. He also spoke about euthanasia and assisted suicide: our view is much broader than anti-abortion, it is about the sanctity of ALL life: 

"anti-abortion" is not what I wrote and definitely not what I meant. If it is the Citizens policy to use that word instead of the word we use ourselves--and the word I always use--the Citizen is manipulating my/our message. 

For someone to read my letter as it stands, who knows little or nothing about life issues, will believe that I/we call ourselves "anti-abortion" when this is simply untrue, misleading to readers, and unfair to us. 

Surely it is not the Citizen's goal to mislead/misrepresent their readers/letter writers? 

...another argument is this: It is one thing for the OC to use the word "anti-abortion" in articles written by staff members (and I don't agree with this either), but it is another thing entirely to change a letter that I have written to use the word "anti-abortion", when clearly the letter should be in my voice, not in the voice of the OC. And the same goes for Cardinal Collins: I was writing about what he said, it wasn't OC staff writing about what he said."

The Citizen has now agreed that:

"letter-writers should be given their own voices as much as possible, regardless of our other style protocols around the issue. As a result, I’ve gone in to our web file and updated your letter to use the term “pro life” where you used it."

I think this is very good news for us at the Ottawa Citizen. Now we need to educate other newspapers in Canada where this policy is practiced.

My letter with the word "pro-life" put back in.

Ottawa Citizen: we call ourselves "pro-life"

Dear Editors and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen,

Today you published my letter in your paper. Thank you.

However a very serious error was made in the publishing of my letter. I used the word "pro-life" twice in my letter. And twice that word was changed to "anti-abortion".

Pro-life people call themselves pro-life for a reason. We do this because we are pro-unborn-babies-life, pro-toddlers-life, pro-teenage-life, pro-elderly life, and pro-sick-and-dying-life.

We do not call ourselves anti-abortion. We call ourselves pro-life.

Not only did the letter (with my name on it) put words in my mouth that I did not and would not say (anti-abortion flag), but it also appears that I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said. He did not say that we should use our talents for the anti-abortion cause, he said said we should use our talents for the pro-life cause. So it sounds like I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said.

I believe it is a sign of respect to call people what they call themselves. For instance, you call yourselves editor. It would be rude of me to call you "word changer" or other such label, because you do not call yourselves "word changer". It would also be disrespectful of me to call you that. 

So as a sign of social etiquette and respect, people should call other people by their preferred labels that identify the work that they do.

I am a pro-life writer/advocate.

Will you please replace the two "anti-abortion" words in the online version of my letter, and instead use the "pro-life" word?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

March for Life - Using our talents to promote the Life

Cardinal Collins pro-life homily. So beautiful and encouraging.

March for Life 2017 - we will never give up

I was very discouraged after returning yesterday from the March for Life.

Every year we do this march, but last year, and now this year, our city approved route was to go down Elgin St. past the Human Rights monument. We believe in human rights for preborn children.

But we were diverted at Albert St. because of other protesters. I took one of their brochures. Oh. And one of them told me she didn't want me video taping her. I ignored her.

The police told us we were diverted to prevent a confrontation with these other protesters. The thing is, the thousands of us are peaceful. So there certainly wouldn't have been a confrontation from us, but rather from these 50 or so threatening, screaming, masked protesters who didn't have the courage to show their faces.

Why did we have to be diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest? Why didn't the police divert them instead? Because the police knew they wouldn't get lip from us. But they would from these others.

And these people were threatening: they originally stood on the corner of Elgin and Slater; then they began to cross and then stood in the middle of the street (with police allowing this); then we were diverted; then when this wasn't enough for these aggressive people, they headed north on Elgin towards where we were being diverted. Reinforcement police came running past us towards these masked people to prevent them from encountering us.

And what were our city councillors doing all this time? They were complaining that a pro-life flag was being flown at city hall.

Our councillors were "outraged" at this. I am not making this up. They were outraged. They didn't like our "individual conviction" to stand up and speak out for preborn children who cannot speak for themselves; who are defenceless; who are killed every year in the thousands by abortion--and who don't have any city councillors brave enough to speak up or out for them. (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkonson, Tobi Nussbaun, Jeff Lieper, Mathieu Fleury, Jan Harder, followed by Jim Watson who then cowed to them and removed our flag)

But this morning I woke up and I felt much better. I remembered what Cardinal Collins said yesterday at the pro-life Mass at St. Pat's Basilica. We are to use our talents in the pro-life cause. We are not to be discouraged.

We will continue to speak up and to march in defence of preborn children and their mothers. With a flag or without a flag.

I videotaped the whole march. Thanks to Maureen for downloading it.

Assisted suicide in Canada - make your voice heard

Below are links on resources about assisted suicide in Canada, including suggestions on contacting our elected leaders to voice our objections to doctor assisted suicide. Also resources on doctor's conscience rights and how they must be protected.

A Pastoral Exhortation on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Archbishop Terrence Prendergast– Read by Fr. Charles Orchard C.C.

Cardinal Collins on assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Youtube Video from Archbishop Collins

From the Diocese of Victoria, On Assisted Suicide and Perspective: A Practical Response by Stephanie Gray

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Coalition for Health Care and Conscience

follow on twitter Coalition for Health Care and Conscience

Life Canada - Euthanasia in Canada: What can you do?

Take Action: Respond to Pending Euthanasia Legislation in Canada Now

Coalition for Health Care and Conscience

Canadians for Conscience -Take action

Take Action – write to the Federal Government

Take action - in Ontario, write to the Provincial Government

Association of Reformed Political Action (ARPA Canada includes ways to contact your MP)

The dangers of doctor assisted suicide

Cardinal Collins speaks out on doctor assisted suicide. Only Canada in the world insists a doctor act against his conscience. Cardinal Collins calls it religious discrimination.

Archbishop Prendergast also speaks out on doctor assisted suicide.

Both leaders encourage Canadians to register their opposition to doctor assisted death, and their support of conscience rights, to our elected MPs. You can do this at the link below.

Visit http://www.canadiansforconscience.ca/
Also send your own letter to Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Cardinal Collins: limit abortion bit by bit

Thursday May 8, 2014 this week will be the annual March for Life.

Last year I wasn't at the March as I was out of the country. So I didn't hear Cardinal Collins homily at St. Patrick's basilica in Ottawa.

My sister taped it though and here is the link.

He advised us to do what we can to limit the evil, bit by bit. To fight for legal limits on abortion one step at a time, since we may not be able to accomplish it all at once.

"...We need to think clearly. We reflect upon how we best can be faithful in proclaiming the Gospel of Life. It's not enough simply to proclaim the Gospel of Life. That's necessary but it's not sufficient. We need to do it faithfully and effectively. We need to look to ways we can creatively help those people who cannot see the value of human life from conception 'til natural death. How can we help people see the truth? We have to look at ways, for example that we can find in the bills of Parliament, that we can limit abortion...more that's good...and then more that's better....then even more, that's better...we may not be able to do it all at once now, but it is far better to limit it, limit it, limit it, persistently, rather than say unless we can do it totally now, like that, we won't do it at all, we'll wait 'til we can do it perfectly.. God expects of us that we will think it through, not for our sake but for the sake of the people we serve."

Cardinal Collins is pretty clear that abortion incrementalism is how we accomplish fighting the evil that is abortion.

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.

CLC says that spiritual leaders not well formed on life issues

CLC issued this official statement today: Campaign Life Coalition and Gestation Legislation

Notice this statement, which I don't agree with:

"The Canadian pro-life movement must continue focusing on prayer as the essential core of the work, and educating spiritual leaders. Sadly, the majority of the latter are neither as knowledgeable nor as well formed as one would expect on the issues affecting life and family.

I believe many of our spiritual leaders are very well formed, like Cardinal Ouellet, Cardinal Collins Archbishop Miller, and the Priests at Priest For Life Canada, to name but a few.

And this statement which I also don't agree with:

"Regular church goers tell us that they never hear a talk, a sermon or a homily educating the faithful on crucial life and family issues."

Our priests at our Parish do speak out on Life issues regularly. And this year our Pastor went to the abortion defund rally, attended Life Chain and 40 days for life. He also spoke about these events, and arranged car pooling for parishioners.

(Update: My last entry on the CLC/AFLO position here)

Gestational Legislation: a morally sound strategy

In the most recent issue of the Guelph and Area Right to Life newsletter, there is an (unsigned) front page article on gestational legislation titled: Gestational Legislation - Giving Henry Morgentaler more than he asked for?

We are all aware that there are some in the pro-life community who agree with the gestational approach, and there are some who do not agree with it. This is fair, and it is okay that we do not all agree on the same approach to abortion.

They stated (rightly) that the debate on the gestational strategy has:

"sometimes [been] heated and hurtful".

I have grave concerns however, by the tone of this article whose sole purpose seems to be to demean the gestational approach, which the author does not themselves believe in.

Archbishop Miller of Vancouver and Cardinal Collins both published statements that a gestational approach to abortion is a moral and valid belief.

Archbishop Miller said:

"This teaching [in Evangelium Vitae n. 73] makes clear that legislation which intends to limit the harm done by a pro-abortion law is not itself cooperation with an unjust law but rather "a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize.

In the absence of a "pro-abortion" law within the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, of a law that explicitly permits abortion, some think that gestational legislation — or any incrementalist legislation — might create a new law that implicitly authorizes abortion. However, in Canada, a series of court rulings, a failure on the part of the federal Parliament to pass criminal legislation, and a variety of provincial laws, regulations and funding formulas intended to provide access to abortion, have the effect of a defacto legal regime that permits abortion with almost no restrictions. Legislation intended to restrict access to abortion would not create a new legal situation in Canada which would authorize abortions, but instead would intend to limit the number of abortions already authorized under the law. Moreover, such legislation intends to limit the harm done to public morality by the injustice already present in the defacto legal situation."

Many of us welcomed this statement by Archbishop Miller. However the writer of the newsletter apparently did not. They stated that the:

"church hierarchy entered into the fray, sadly raising more tension."

I disagree. It is always healthy and proper for the church to state their position on issues of morality. This is what our church leaders are supposed to do: guide the flock on moral issues. With something as important as abortion, their statements provided us with this necessary guidance. Those of us who believe gestational legislation is a valid philosophy, were encouraged that our actions were in line with Catholic Church teaching. As to raising more tension, this is only true for those who do not accept a gestational strategy. For the rest of us, there is no tension, only joy that we may continue doing what we are already doing.

The newsletter then stated that:

"[regarding a gestational approach] it is argued that we wish only the good, to protect the children after twenty weeks, but implicit in this approach is the fact that those we do not include we abandon."

It is not implicit at all that we are abandoning any babies. Here is what Archbishop Miller said regarding this:

"A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize."

I was also very troubled by the long quote the writer provided from abortion doctor Morgentaler from 1967 that appeared to be used to make a not so veiled comparison of Morgentaler, to people who believe in a gestational approach.

(Note: In 1967 the existing abortion law prohibited all abortions, so the quote is not pertinent to the current situation where there is no legal restrictions on abortion.)

The writer then quotes Dr. Morgentaler who said that the end does not justify the means. The writer says of this comment, that:

"Strange he did not see the plank in his own eye. Let us not be the same."

The implication is that those of us who believe in a gestational approach to get rid of abortion, are wrong. We are not wrong, as Archbishop Miller also stated,:

"The teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is clear. 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 effect of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion."

For those people who cannot support gestational legislation, like the writer of the article, this is a fair belief to hold, and is not against the Church. We respect that viewpoint and we welcome any sound evidence that shows the gestational approach does not work.

However, what is "hurtful" and harmful to the movement, is articles such as this, which provides no evidence, but rather, simply criticizes our morally justified beliefs of the gestational approach.

Archbishop Miller closes with these wise words:

"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."

Cardinal Collins affirms statement on gestational legislation

Cardinal Collins Affirms Statement from Archbishop of Vancouver re: Gestational Legislation

"Cardinal Thomas Collins has asked that the communication below be reproduced in this space, to help educate our Catholic community and to affirm the statement made by Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, Archbishop of Vancouver. It is reproduced with the permission of the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Please see the note below regarding its origin and background.

(from the Archdiocese of Vancouver)

The statement by Vancouver Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, regarding the morality of support for“gestational” legislation, was issued to guide the consciences of Catholics within the pro-life movement in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The statement was issued in response to a number of requests for guidance from Catholics active in the pro-life movement. It was distributed to pro-life organizations that are active within or headquartered within the Archdiocese of Vancouver for the guidance of their Catholic members. If you have reactions or questions, please contact the Archbishop of Vancouver’s office or Pavel Reid at the Archdiocese of Vancouver Respect Life Office at 604-443-3220 or preid@rcav.org."