Abortion will end because of our prayers

What a blessed day.

Maureen and I joined Fr. Tony and others today to pray to end abortion.

We also were able to go to St. Pat's Basilica for Mass and confession.

Whenever I see the persistence of faithful prayer warriors at the abortion site my heart is filled with hope that we will accomplish our goal.

Maureen took the pictures.

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - honouring conscience rights

Update December 10, 2015: There are now 417 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update September 1, 2015: There are now 416 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update August 9, 2015: There are now 397 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update February 16, 2015: There are now 394 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update January 27, 2015: There are now 392 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 13: There are now 367 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 14: There were a few duplicates from yesterday's post. There are now 364 names.

Update December 13: There are now 368 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 8: There are now 334 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 6: There are now 332 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Another comment:

"My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party has made decisions without (seemingly) benefit of consultation. In my view, he is acting like an autocrat, and I find that very frightening. I cannot, in good faith, support the Liberal Party of Canada under these conditions."

Update December 3: There are now 330 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 30: Another comment:

"The way some elected officials are thinking is beyond belief & if it continues like this, pretty soon we will have no rights."

There are now 322 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 29: Another comment:

"In an effort to appear “progressive” in his ideas, he has actually displayed some ignorance, as well as a narrow minded perspective about rights and freedoms."

There are now 318 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 28: Another comment:

"He [Trudeau] certainly does not have ears that hear, eyes that see, nor wisdom to ever be a Prime Minister of our great country Canada."

There are now 262 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 27: There are now 252 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 23: More comments from signers:

"She [Pat] makes an excellent case based on the very Charter of which Mr. Trudeau seems to have minimal and selective knowledge."

...

"on the day after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement , as well as sending off a note to him, I also wrote to the Liberal Party of Canada and  to my local riding president. Within a day of receiving my letter, I received a phone call from the riding president. We we able to have a lengthy and civilized discussion on the topic. I found his ears open … and although his direct impact on Mr. Trudeau is limited, I felt that my opinions had been heard and that they would be carried back to party discussions, at least at the local level.I am convinced that this is an important route for people who are in disagreement with Mr. Trudeau’s new policy - be in touch at the grassroots! If change is to occur, I think this is where it may begin - when members hear the hearts of their own constituents."

...

"Please add my name to the list defending the Charter of Rights as stated, and not Me. Trudeau's convenient interpretation. Thank you (paying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, rescinded until freedom to vote according to conscience is reinstated)"

There are now 237 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 21: Another comment I received:

"Please add my name to Letter to Trudeau. He has definitely gone off the tracks."

There are now 232 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: There are now 225 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: Many people thanked me for writing this letter. Here is one such note I received:

"Thank you for initiating this. I am a "cradle Liberal" who was also a "card carrying Liberal" who is now re-evaluating her political views. While I find that I do not like what I hear from all parties, I will definitely not be in Justin's corner. He is not turning out to be our 'white knight' but quite the opposite. Please add my name to your letter."

Update Nov 16: There are now 219 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 15: There are now 209 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Oct 16: Since I sent this letter to Justin Trudeau, I've received additional names which I've added to the bottom. I now have over 100 signatures. If you would still like to sign the letter please send me an email at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name to the letter. In a couple of weeks I will send Mr. Trudeau another letter with the updated names. The more Canadians who voice their displeasure with Mr. Trudeau's attack on democracy, the better.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We the undersigned, are very concerned about your recent edict to exclude pro-life people from being candidates for the Liberal Party. We are also concerned that you say you are doing this, because you are a strong believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must confess, we find it impossible to reconcile the two.

First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience (See section 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion). This is a fundamental right and the Charter is very clear in that it promises that all Canadians have this right. This would include all persons who wish to run for political parties. How can you in good conscience, exclude people because their consciences guide them differently, than yours does?

Second, when some honourable ex-Liberal MPs wrote you, you dismissed their concerns because you felt the writers were "old men". This dismissal is also against the Charter, since your comments are both ageist and sexist, and so discriminatory based on same.
("See section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability).

Would you likewise discriminate against a young female's opinion? Or conversely, perhaps you are implying that you would only listen to a young female's opinion? In either case, this would still be discrimination based on age and gender.

If you do not agree with these men's arguments, I would love to hear what your counter arguments would be. Instead you chose to ignore their arguments, preferring to attack the speakers instead of the subject at hand. This is not helpful in furthering honest and intelligent discussions on any issue including abortion.

Finally, on many occasions you have stated that a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the Charter. But this is not the case at all. The Supreme Court Justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision never stated that a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. How can you believe then, that her right to abortion is guaranteed by the Charter? It isn't. Please see here for a detailed discussion what is in that decision, as well as what isn't.

We must admit we are very confused by your understanding of the Charter. On the one hand, you ignore what is clearly guaranteed in the Charter, and on the other hand, you invent something that is clearly not in the Charter and say that it is. With all due respect Mr. Trudeau, your sentiments are logically incoherent.

We respectfully request that you welcome all persons into the Liberal Party regardless of their beliefs about abortion and that you respect their right to vote in accordance with their conscience.

We believe all persons deserve the same respect regardless of conscience beliefs, of gender, or of age.

Let the people decide if they wish to vote for these differing viewpoints. That is why we hold elections. It really isn't for the leader to decide this. We believe this is what democracy is all about.

We respectfully request that you respond to this letter, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Adele Constantineau

Aileen Simpson

Alana Pelc

Aldo Dolcetti

Alice Fougère

Alida van der Vegt

Amber Friesen

Amelia Andal

Ana Stopa

Anastasia Bowles

Andre Pare

Andrea Mrozek

Angus Kelly

Angus MacDonald

Ankeje Snell

Ann Sullivan

Anna-Marie Kean

Anne Bonnah

Anne Egan

Anne Essiambre

Anne Marie Powell

Anne Stewart

Anne Waggoner

Annette Besner

Annette Downey

Arnold Bossa

Audrey Beard

Barbara Norris

Barry Dunn

Bea Suelirin

Beatrice Kyolaba

Bena Toscano

Bernadette McCormick

Bernie Langill

Betty Barrett

Bev deMontigny

Bibiane O'Gorman

Bill Vanderlinde

Bob Du Broy

Bob Riley

Bob Rudy

Bonnie Pember

Brett Bottyan

Brian Smith

Bridget Van Osch

Camille Bozozuk

Carl Hickey

Carls Aury

Carm Scine

Carmen D'Souza

Carol Cheslock

Carol Gaboury

Carol Gervais

Carol Gray

Carol Roch

Carol Talgoy

Carole Atkinson

Carrie Peters

Cathie Mary Butler

Cecilia Bowles

Céline d'Etcheverry

Chantel Drew Ward

Charlene Charron

Charles Fortin

Charles Saso

Charles Vince

Chris Belford

Chris Ward

Christian Lange

Clarissa Canaria

Claude A. Brule

Claude Leduc

Cliff Pyle

Cliff Snell

Colette Stang

Conny Barel

Corinne Ware

Craig Read

Curtis Ogilvie

Cynthia Bredfeldt

Cynthia Connolly

Cyril Winter

Daniel Hunter

Daniel Surprenant

Darlene Irvine

Daryl Sheppard

David Darwin

Deacon Rick Gervais

Deacon Wayne S. Lee

Debbie Duval

Debbie Ward

Deborah Egan

Delores Doherty

Denis Bergeron

Denise Davis

Diane Irvine

Diane Naipaul

Diane Stump

Dolly Moyse

Don Powell

Donald Andre Bruneau

Donna Barry

Donna J., Anderson

Donna Verner

Dr. E. Letourneau MD

Dr. Joseph Clarke MD

Dr. Robert Walley

Dt Bruneau

Edward Olszewski

Eileen Meunier

Eileen Steil

Elaine Black

Elaine Cavalier

Eliette Campau

Elizabeth (Betty) Donnelly

Elizabeth Doucette

Ellen Chesal

Elva Roley

Erie Eizenga

Ernestine Fronc

Ester da Silva

Eugene Leenders

Eva McGuire

Fabien Bergeron

Fr Joseph Kane, OMI

Fr. Autur Ockwood, MSF

Fr. Daniel Berniquez

Fr. Dennis Hayes CC

Fr. Hezuk Shroff

Fr. Kenneth Lao C.C.

Fr. Michael Weitl

Fr. Yves Marchildon CC

Francilia Poirier

Francis J. Barrett

François Savard

Frank Egan

Frank LeVay

Frederick Tremblay

Gail Goshko

Gar Knutson

Gary D. Knight PhD

Gary O'Meara

Gemma O’Sullivan

Gene Makish

Genevieve Moncrieff

George Olliver

Gerard Beltran

Germaine Gaudet

Gillian Keenan

Gisele C. Pitre

Gloria Pearson-Vasey

Glovana Clarke

Gordon Duncan

Gordon Verner

Grace G. Brule

Greg Doyle

Guy Dacquay Hani Zakhia

Harriet McEachen

Harry Norris

Helena Szakowski

Hildegard Krieg

Immaculte Nalukago

Ineesha Ym

Jackie Vince

Jacqueline Sullivan

Jacques Campeau

Jakki Jeffs

James Pierce

James Snell

Jane Langabeer

Janet Davidson

Janet Seward

Jauise Seteurnear

Jean Morgan

Jean-Pierre Dostaler

Jeannine Lebel

Jeannine Legault

Jen MacDonald

Jennifer Snell

Jessica Sheppard

Jessie MacIsaac

Jim Beard

Jim Cairney

Jim Leliveld

Jim Vandervoort

Joan Coyne

Joan Langtry

Joan Lemieux

Joan Lepage

Joan O’Brien

Joan Wills

Joanne Sabourin

Jocelyn Unsworth

Joe Sinicrope

Joe Stalmach

Joe Thottungal

Joe Winchester

John Bolech

John Hof

John Lammers

John Lange

John Sammut

John Sebok

John Stefan Obeda

John Ward

John Ware

Jonathon Van Maren

Jordan Beard

Joseph Patrie

Joseph van der Vegt

Josie O’Rourke

Joy Wolfenden

Joyce C. Allison

Judy Smith

Julia Irvine

Julie Culshaw

Julie Smulski

K. Neatyrexuslei

Karen Thomson

Karine Surprenant

Kas Pelc

Kathie Hogan

Kathy Vanderlinde

Kathy Waechter

Kay Newbold

Ken Martin

Ken O'Day

Kim MacMullen

Kim Tran

L. Jill Vince

Larry Chretien

Laura Gueguen

Laura Patrie

Lauralee Sopczak

Lauralee Sopezak

Laurelia Charlemagne

Lawrence Moore

Len Mihalicz

Leo Andal

Liana Gallant

Linda Allard

Linda Cobb

Linda Laperle

Linda Tensen

Lise Anglin

Lois Duncan

Lorelle Baptiste

Lorraine Lemay

Lorraine Lynch

Lorraine MacPherson

Lorraine Martin

Louis Seward

Louise Chretien

Louise Dubois

Louise Letourneau

Lourdez Mangaring

Lucette Pilon-Bergeron

Luciano Ingriselli

Lucie Bastien

Lucille Bourbonnais

Lyse Charron

Lyse Charron

M L Currie

M. Bozozuk

Madeleine Lafleur

Madeleine Thomas

Maeve Ryan

Magda Baillot

Malcolm Roddis

Marc Dennis

Marcel Sinasac

Marcelle Belanger

Margaret Thomson

Maria Cairns

Maria Torrone

Maria Ym

Marian Obeda

Mariana Marchand

Mariane Louis-Seize

Marianne Proulx

Marie Stalmach

Marie Vanbergen

Marie-Claire Fortin

Marion Labonté

Marlene Holt

Marnie Sebok

Marta Pan

Mary Ann A. Peralta

Mary Catharine Carroll

Mary Doyle

Mary F. MacDonald

Mary Jean Belford

Mary Knechtel

Mary MacDonald

Mary Michael

Mary Mitro

Mary Olszewski

Mary Pantone

Maryke Vos

Mat Uszewsko

Maureen Ward

Michael Liang

Michael Szakowski

Michael Ward

Michelle Sinasac

Miranda D. Reis

Moncia Roddis

Murielle Plante

Nancy Kerslake

Nancy Macri

Nancy Tremblay

Nancy Winslow

Natalie Grenier

Natalie Hudson Sonnen

Natasha Fernandes

Neva Lorenzon

Nicole Arranz

Nirmala Ym

Noreen Minifie

Norman Jay

Pat Laviolette

Pat Macdonald

Patricia Balis

Patricia Chura

Patricia Moore

Patricia Trites

Patrick Pena

Paul Charron

Paula Maloney

PAULETTE A. ST-JACQUES

Pauline Guzik

Peggy Doucette

Peggy Hunter

Peggy Kelly

Per Talgoy

Peter McGann

Peter Ryan

Philip Tan

Phyllis Dennis

Pierre Collette

Pierre Poirier

Ray Thomson

Rebecca Ocoma

Rebecca Richmond

Rejean Besner

Renald Veilleux

Rev. Mr. Rudy M. Ovcjak

Rhiel Perrin

Rick Stankiewicz

Rihad Lzrkncb

Rita Hude

Rita Hudec

Rita Magny

Robert Campbell

Robert Farley

Robert Halpin

Robert S. Anderson

Romana Dolcetti

Romana Pecek

Ron Trent

Rosanne De Luca

Rose Marie MacMullen

Rose-Marie Gagné

Rosemary Connell

Rosetta Caza

RS Ayart

Ruth Spearns

Savio Leon DeSouza

Scott Eagan

Se Ardaf

Sean Mulligan

Sean O'Carroll

Shane Allard

Sheila Knight

Sheridan Brace

Sherwin B. Peralta

Sheryle Snell

Shirley Leduc

Simone Gingnas

Stan Siok

Suma Joe

Susan Ditmar

Susan Duguay

Suzanne Lalonde

Sylivie Bozozuk

Sylvie Bissonnette

Ted Sabourin

Teresa Aitken

Teresa Kane

Teresa Psutka

Terry Cantin

Tess Sturgeon

Thea Streng

Theodore Morgan

Theresa Everett

Theresa McDonald

Theresa Winchester

Therese Lavergne

Tom Mockler

Tony Gosgnach

Tracey McAskill

Twilight Beltran

Ulrika Drevniok

Valerie Bottyan

Valerie Delaney

Veronica von Neubronn

Vicki Forsyth

Vince Berndt

Vince van den Bosch

Viviane Pelletier

Wanda Hartlin

Wayne Waechter

Wayne Weston

Wendy Wellington

Yvon Pelletier (416)

Henry Morgentaler's legacy

For insight into Henry Morgentaler, listen to the CBC interview with Henry Morgentaler back in 2008.

"My inordinate need to be loved by women. I got the impression that my mother didn't love me because there was a younger baby that she devoted a lot of attention to. I personally believe that she neglected me and didn't love me. To be loved by women was emotionally to me very important. 

Being the center of attention validates you. It means I am important. That I do important things. I can be recognized for that."

Never a word about the children he killed through abortion.

What a sad sad man.

He needed women to love him, and couldn't stand the attention his mother gave to a younger baby. So he devoted his life to making sure women got rid of their children, children who, unbelievably, threatened him. That an innocent tiny helpless baby could threaten this man is beyond astounding.

Why couldn't he use his medical ability to support these women through their pregnancies instead of taking the lives of their innocent children?

Now we are left with his legacy of abortion clinics across our country. Clinics that cause death and destruction instead of healing and nurturing. Clinics that were born from his insecurity because of babies. Clinics that we hope and pray will all close one day.

His clinic in New Brunswick is set to close. God willing, it will.

Closure of Morgentaler clinic is great news

MP Niki Ashton isn't happy that the Morgentaler abortion clinic in New Brunswick is closing.

Too bad for Ashton. Too good for preborn babies.

Ashton says that:

"This is a matter of life or death for women across the Maritimes...There should be no place in Canada where a woman's health is compromised because of a failure to provide access...More over, by imposing these restrictions it compromises women's health...Now these women no longer have access to health services that other Canadians have access to. It is time to address the gender inequality that exists when it comes to health care services available in Canada."

It always amazes me how the pro-abortions equate abortions with health care. What exactly, is healthy about killing human beings? Abortion is not a medically necessary procedure. It's not medically necessary for the woman, and it's not medically necessary for the child.

In most cases abortion is psychologically, emotionally and physically harmful to women. In 100% of the cases, abortion is fatally harmful to the preborn child.

And because abortion isn't medically necessary, it should never be funded by taxpayers. New Brunswick has it right.

Any money saved from the closure of Morgentaler's clinic, could be put to far better use supporting crisis pregnancy centres, including beefing up adoption support.

I'd like to see the rest of Canada follow suit.

Stop vacuuming for a second

I almost missed George Jonas's piece on Thursday, the Suicidal Generation. Thankfully my husband pointed it out to me.

Jonas had some very insightful words about the state of the world, and how the patriarchy has given way to the matriarchy.

"No generation has been as adept at sawing off the branch on which it was sitting as ours. We want to live in good health forever — fair enough — and start by killing off those who would help us achieve this ambition. We have nothing against babies, and actually wish other people had more of them because we may need them as ratepayers and organ donors, but having to bring them up cramps our style. 

As if extending post-retirement — i.e., unproductive — life by 20-30 years weren’t economically reckless enough, we pursue policies of longevity while casually slaughtering those who might pay for it. Sometimes I feel like going: “Hey, fellow, stop vacuuming for a second! That lump you’re about to remove is your only possible means of support in your Viagra days.
“Never mind if it’s alive or not, you are! You’re alive, and not only want to live past the age of peak productivity, but past the age of self-sufficiency as well. Cost what it may in diagnostic, surgical, pharmaceutical and geriatric research and treatment, you want to explore the far shores of dependency and maximum consumption of medical care and social services. Yet there you go, vacuuming away your sole means of support as if there were no tomorrow — and for you, there may not be.”
...
Had I been born a little earlier, say, 30 million years ago, in the same place, I wouldn’t have become a columnist. What geologists call the Pannonia basin was the bottom of a shallow sea then, covering much of Europe. Born in such a place, chances are I would have been an ancestral fish. I couldn’t have participated in building a society in which the least safe place is the womb and babies have no one to fear but their mothers. Yes, I would have missed something for sure."

I for one, am very glad that Jonas has received the Order of Canada. Much better than one of his predecessors, Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Who made his living from vacuuming out babies. Thank God for small mercies.

Respect for human life as a societal value

Dr. Margaret Somerville comments on Dr. Henry Morgentaler's death. Dr. Somerville gets to the heart of what I believe will be the inevitable failure of the pro-choice philosophy with these comments:

"Pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is an entirely personal decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her physician; that the fetus is not a “person”, who should be legally protected, but is just a “bunch of cells that is part of the woman’s body, which she has the right to control”; and that any woman who does not want an abortion is not forced to have one. These justifications are all at the level of the individual woman who wants an abortion.

But having no legal restrictions on abortion affects more than just the individual woman — or, indeed, the individual unborn child who is aborted. It damages the value of respect for human life in general, at the societal level. Respect for life has two limbs: it must be upheld, not only, with respect to each individual human life, important as that is, but also, with regard to respect for human life in general, as a societal value.

Even if we ignore the failure to respect the individual unborn child’s life, abortion, especially taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand, contravenes respect for human life in general. Consequently, there is something profoundly disordered and deeply tragic about celebrating abortion, as some pro-choice people want us to do. And celebrating Morgentaler’s contribution to changing Canadian society necessarily entails celebrating abortion."

Contrast Dr. Somerville's thoughts with those of Joyce Arthur, who doesn't think a pro-life philosophy "deserves equal time or respect in Canada" and that a pro-life viewpoint is "profoundly mistaken, cruel and undemocratic". Arthur wonders why the "mainstream media continues to give space to these fanatics." There's more of course, there always is with the pro-abortions. You can read it for yourself if you find yourself really bored with nothing else to do. Or you could read a good book.

Sentiments like Ms. Arthur's tell us that the pro-abortions are worried their abortion philosophy may be in jeopardy as weneedaLAW astutely points out. Because there are many of us who don't celebrate abortion and never will.

It's only a matter of time Joyce, only a matter of time.

Henry Morgentaler

Brian Lilley's thoughts on the recent death of Henry Morgentaler (see full video below). Lilley says:

"Henry Morgentaler was not a great man, he was a mistaken man. He brought great evil to this country."

...while Heather Mallick is worried about women being "frozen in shock" and crying on their keyboard.

Oh dear. My keyboard is dry.

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."

Fact checking works wonders

It's been an interesting week for abortion politics.

The week got off to a shaky start when a Canadian Press article on the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision came out with some factual errors, and was subsequently picked up by pretty much every media outlet:
"It's been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights."
and
"The Canadian Institute for Health Information says at least 64,000 abortions were performed in Canada in 2010, the most recent year for which information is available."

I sent CP an email and told them that no, the Supreme Court never ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights, and that those 64,000 abortions are grossly under reported because:
"A) Quebec did not report their statistics for 2010 at all. B) It is not mandatory for clinics to report abortions, and many do not. C) all the abortions done in private physicians offices are not captured at all. There were at least 44,000 abortions done in Ontario alone in 2010 (only 28,765 were reported by CIHI for Ont. in 2010. My numbers are based on freedom of information requests I did of the Ont Min. of Health based on Dr's OHIP billings. BTW Ont recently excluded abortion services from FOI's). See here:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html

Then later in the week Maurice Vellacott issued a press release, which anyone who actually bothered to read, would see it contained a very significant bit, about abortions resulting in live births--that the Canadian Press once again, didn't immediately report the live births variable.

The media reports came out saying that three MPS wanted the RCMP to investigate any/all abortions after 19 weeks as possible homicides. Even Mr. Harper and other MPS in the House of Commons were all on about, their favourite topic: "not reopening the abortion debate."

That wasn't even what we are talking about people. Once again, most of the major media outlets picked up the wrong information.

Again I contacted the CP. Finally on Friday I heard back from them and was assured that they had updated their reports. Thank goodness.

Watch MP Maurice Vellacott discuss the born alive abortions with CBC.

Take particular note of NDP Niki Ashton who talks about something--abortion--that Mr. Vellacott is not talking about. Ms. Aston says that it is an "egregious statement equating abortion to murder." It's too bad she didn't actually listen to Mr. Vellacott, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He's talking about babies left to die after an abortion.

Now I have no problem with educating the mainstream media and NDP MPs about abortion, and in fact it's kind of fun. But maybe they should check out some of the facts for themselves before speaking to the world about it. I have to do that, so why shouldn't they?

(In today's paper, at least the National Post gets it right here and here: And yesterday CFRA got it right too after some not so right newscasts the night before.)

How Reproductive Justice affects the pre-born child: silent screams cannot be heard but broken bodies can be seen

January 28, 2013: For Immediate Release (From CCBR press release)

25 Years of Bloodshed: Anti-Abortion Youth Activists Across Canada Mourn Morgentaler Anniversary

“January 28 is a solemn day that impacts every Canadian, whether they realize it or not. Due to R. v. Morgentaler, our streets are emptier, our pre-born brothers and sisters live tenuously in a state of constant danger, and a generation of girls has been sold the insidious lie that their sons and daughters are disposable for any arbitrary reason at all,” said Stephanie Gray, executive director of CCBR who was just 7 years old when the Morgentaler decision passed.

“A new generation of young people are rising up to say stop killing our generation,” she continued. “Canada has failed miserably to live up to the standards of our Constitution and our Charter. When we say 'everyone' has a right to life, we need to mean everyone, including the youngest of our kind.”

Gray said that her group uses graphic abortion imagery because “pre-born childrens’ silent screams cannot be heard but their broken bodies can be seen—which cry out for justice.”

Demonstration locations and times:
Toronto: 6:30pm @ 2 Sussex Avenue
Windsor: 12pm @ Oulette Ave and Wyandotte St
London: 5pm @ Sarnia Rd and Western Rd
Calgary: 8pm @ 1133 Kensington Rd
Prince George: TBA

How Reproductive Justice affects women

25 Years Since the Morgentaler Decision: A Celebration

"A Celebration and Discussion of Reproductive Justice for Canadian Women

The Morgentaler decision followed the rise of a movement supporting a woman's right to choose that involved thousands of women, men, students, trade unionists and social justice activists. This victory for women's rights is an important reason to celebrate and to remember Dr. Morgentaler's contribution. It is also a moment to recognize that, despite the Morgentaler decision, women in Canada still struggle for access to abortion and that the fight for reproductive justice is still ongoing in Canada."

Dear Ms.Egan and Ms. Bardsley,

We all care about the well-being of women and girls. Will you please watch these two short videos? They were made by Keith Neeley. These women tell their stories about how abortion affected their lives.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Who can be against justice?

The pro-abortions are at it again. Tomorrow they will "celebrate" 25 years of "Reproductive Justice".

That's the day that the Morgentaler decision came down.

So what is this latest euphemism "Reproductive Justice" anyway?

Wikipedia tells us that:
“Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

Well-being you say? Whose well-being? The woman's well being? The pre-born child's well-being? Society's well-being? I don't think so.

And what, exactly, is "just" about "Reproductive Justice"? Everybody knows that abortion harms the "complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls". Everybody knows that abortion destroys pre-born children, who will never even get a chance to experience any "physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being". Everybody knows that abortion harms families and society. What exactly, is just about all that?

The only ones benefiting from this latest flavour of the week, what are they talking about (you are for justice right?), euphemistic phrase for abortion, are the doctors who earn their living from it.

"Reproductive Justice"; all paid for, courtesy you and me.

In fact the "celebration" tomorrow is brought to you by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC).

Maybe "Reproductive Justice" is really for the well-being of Big Abortion. Maybe that is what "Reproductive Justice" is all about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:

Have a look at this video that shows what "reproductive justice" looks like for babies. This video was made by Bernard Nathanson and is called "Eclipse of Reason". It shows an abortion.

"This is the face of a world of violence."

Watch it and weep. For the children. For the women. For Canada.



(note the statistics quoted here are much lower than today, as this film was produced in 1987).

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.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (who declined to debate)

A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."

So I checked it out, to see exactly who was invited to debate Stephanie Gray.

Here is the list of people who either declined, or did not reply, or ignored the organizers' invitations.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick ("pro-choice" columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

iii. Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry (MP) (declined to debate)

iv. Hon. Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP) (declined to debate)

v. Dr. Kathryn Treehuba, Uof Ottawa professor (Obs-Gyn), and Ottawa-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vi. Dr. Fraser Fellows, UWO professor (Obs-Gyn), and London-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vii. Federation of Medical Women of Canada (declined to debate)

viii. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada- Joyce Arthur (declined to debate)

ix. NDP Party (no reply to invitation)

x. Canadians for Choice (declined to debate)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation) 

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland - Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation) 
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

If the "pro-choicers" were not happy with Jovan Morales representing their position, they have only themselves to blame. They were given plenty of opportunity to participate, and declined to.

I guess they thought they could shut down the debate this way. Well, how well did that work out for them? Not too good I'd say.

Maybe they'll think twice next time, before rejecting or ignoring invitations to debate.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?

The University of Ottawa Students for Life and University of Ottawa Medical Students for Life organized a great debate last night between Stephanie Gray (CCBR)and Jovan Morales (Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa) at the University.

The topic was "Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?"

The debate may have never happened because the organizers spent four months looking for someone to debate Stephanie. Ten people were asked, including Joyce Arthur and Dr. Henry Morgentaler. All declined except Jovan (kudos to Jovan for his attempt to be a worthy debating partner to Stephanie.)

There was some rather annoying noise of the rude and heckling variety, but we were able to pretty much block it out. For the most part, the debate was fantastic.

I'm hoping we get a video loaded up to youtube for those of you not able to make it.

Stephanie was the clear winner.

The face of the abortion debate

We Want the Debate

Educating Francoise

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?

Just as the unborn cannot speak

LifeSiteNews tells us that Linda Gibbons has been arrested again. This time in front of the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto. Steve Jalsevac tells us:
"Linda’s long, now over 8-years total time in jail resumes again. How many more months or years in jail remains to be seen. Her young, very determined current lawyer has notably advanced her cause, although it is still an uphill battle. Linda does not speak in the court, just as the unborn cannot speak as they are destroyed."

Linda is a true Canadian hero. God bless her.

Canada's no-abortion law

Supreme Court Justices in Canada hold an awful lot of power. Five of seven judges changed the course of Canadian history forever when they struck down our abortion law. In essence they legalized abortion.

When you peel back the legalize about who those five people were, you realize that they were basically just people like any other Canadian citizen. Yes they were judges, but so what? And they were not elected, they were appointed. Why do we give them all that power? They put their pants on each morning the same way you and I do, one leg at at time. Yes they are learned, but so are many other Canadians. And we the people didn't pick them to make our laws and we didn't pick them to strike down our laws. A politician did.

What if different men and women had been on the bench that year? Different Canadians with a different set of values. Maybe if instead of only two people dissenting on that infamous case, there had been five of them willing to look past Henry Morgentaler and his pro-abortion crusade. Maybe if those five different people were unborn children advocates, maybe things would be different now.

Our no-abortion law is nothing to be proud of. It is something to be very sad about indeed.

The fetus had no legal recognition capable of protection

In an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge (about 5 minutes into the interview), Stephen Harper, when asked if his government received a majority in the next election, whether he would "reopen the abortion issue", responded:
"No, no, no. Look Peter, I've spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party have passionate views, they're all over the map, and you know what I say to people...as you know, many people I know are pro-life...what I say to people, is if you want to diminish the number of abortions you've got to change hearts and not laws, and I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law."

What a politically expedient thing to say.

It is true that the Conservatives have done a very good job on the economic and fiscal file. It would be disingenuous to deny this.

But Mr. Harper has to put a stake through the “hidden agenda”'s heart, killing it once and for all. Mr. Harper wants to court those Canadians who just might vote for a fiscal Conservative, but who would never, ever vote for a social Conservative.

Mr. Harper might even get a majority. Imagine that.

But let's go back to his not changing the abortion laws comment.

We all know that the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 when they struck down Canada's abortion law (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988), that Parliament has the right to legislate protection for unborn children (e.g. Chief Justice Dickson said, "Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.").

Then in 1959, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child was adopted by a UN General Assembly Resolution 1386 (XIV).

The Declaration states in its preamble:
"WHEREAS the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth (emphasis added)".

In 1989 this declaration became a Treaty which Canada and all 10 provinces signed.

Here is a good discussion on this Declaration: The Issue of Fetal Rights in Canada written by Colleen D'Orsay Wintermans, student, Cape Breton University, November 25, 2005.

Ms. D'Orsay Wintermans says:
“The purpose of this paper to explore the issue of fetal rights in Canada. I do so from the perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...In protecting rights of the unborn child to adequate care however, the [Canadian] Criminal Code seems to come up short. In an effort to avoid both the heated and oft politically volatile abortion debate and the rights of the mother to control her own body, no section of the Code exists that protects for the health and well being of the unborn developing child in utero. Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code says that a child becomes a human being when it has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother." In other words, the child has no protection until after birth (Byfield, 2002)... Until then, the fetus has no legal rights any more than, say, a pair of sneakers has legal rights. Therefore, the fetus had no legal recognition capable of protection. According to the courts, there is, simply, no one to protect (Bowal, & Wanke, 1998).”

We can and should “change the hearts” of people. But most Canadians also want some legal protection for the unborn. Our judges have said this, and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child has said this.

Mr. Harper will not reopen the abortion debate unless he is pressured into it by us.

So what can we do?

Write a letter to Mr. Harper and tell him you want legal protection for the unborn and you want this to be an election issue.
(Prime Minister pm@pm.gc.ca
Stephen Harper Harper.S@parl.gc.ca)

Write a letter to your MP and tell her or him you want legal protection for the unborn. Tell your MP that since they represent you in Parliament, you expect them to advocate for the unborn.
(MP email addresses)

Write a letter to your favourite newspaper letters’ editor and tell them you want this to be an election issue.
(Here are a few:
Letters at the Citizen letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Letters at the Montreal Gazette letters@thegazette.canwest.com
Letters at the Globe and Mail letters@globeandmail.com
Letters at National Post letters@nationalpost.com)

It's up to us to speak up for legal rights for the unborn.