Stop Censorship tour opens in Ottawa

Last night Mike Mike Schouten, and John Sikkema from weneedalaw.ca and ARPA Canada kicked off our Ontario tour to educate citizens on what the Ontario government is up to in censoring abortion information in Ontario.

There are eight more stops they will be making starting Monday. This affects all people in Ontario who care about open, accountable, and transparent government.

Our case is also about our Charter rights of freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. When we are stopped from having a meaningful discussion on a subject, any subject, especially one as politically charged as abortion, we need to stand up and challenge the powers that be.

Our case does this. I hope you can attend one of the upcoming sessions.

Stop censorship

From https://weneedalaw.ca/2016/11/stop-censorship-tour/

While George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a warning, it has become a ‘how-to’ manual of sorts for cultural Marxists. Telling the truth requires knowing the facts and being free to talk about them openly. 

The STOP CENSORSHIP TOUR will be hosting an event in Ottawa at the Ottawa Reformed Presbyterian Church on Saturday, January 7 and you are invited to learn about how the Government of Ontario is actively hiding abortion statistics in order to frustrate the ongoing work of helping women and advancing pre-born human rights. 

This event is free to attend and will feature John Sikkema, a lawyer with ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada and Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedaLAW.ca. The event will also feature Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa who has been fighting for access to abortion data in Ontario. There will be a financial appeal to support the ongoing efforts of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

For more information please email Cassy Knegt at info@weneedalaw.ca

How the defeat of Cassie and Molly’s Law could endanger abortion

by Barbara Maloney

Cathay Wagantall’s Private Members Bill C-225 (Cassie and Molly’s Law) was defeatedby a wide margin (209 to 76) in the House of Commons last week. This means the bill will not be sent to a committee for study and is now dead.

Bill C-225 would have allowed charges to be laid for harming or causing the death of a preborn child while committing a criminal offence against a pregnant woman. Such a law would act as a strong deterrent to committing violent acts against pregnant women, increasing the chances she and her baby could make it safely through her pregnancy. It was a compassionate and common sense response to an all too common problem.

Not a single MP from any party other than the Conservatives voted for the bill. This suggests the vote may have been whipped by leaders of the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, which is odd since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the other party leaders have repeatedly argued in favour of women’s reproductive choice. Bill C-225 would have strengthened reproductive choice for women by making it a criminal offence for a third party to intentionally kill a pregnant woman’s fetus (thus terminating her pregnancy) while committing a criminal offence against her – a pregnancy termination to which she clearly did not consent. We are talking here about someone who attacks a woman and takes away her choice by ending the life of the child who otherwise would have been born alive. Nothing could undermine women’s reproductive choice more than that.

My MP, Chandra Arya (Liberal) wrote to me last month saying that he would not be supporting the bill. I had seen comments from other Liberal MPs as well. No doubt, the Liberal MPs were given a set of talking points to use to try to defend their opposition to C-225. But their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, which suggests something else was behind their opposition to the bill, as I explain below.

Criticism: C-225 doesn’t address the broader issue of gender-based violence

The Liberal government criticized the bill for failing “to address the broader issue of violence against women.” But why would any MP not support a law that at least partially addresses the problem? No bill ever completely addresses an issue, and so why should C-225 be held to a higher standard than any other bill?

Mr. Arya also told me that “Our government believes that gender-based violence has no place in our society, and we are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive federal strategy against gender-based violence.” That’s great, and bill C-225 could have been one important part of such a comprehensive strategy. Voting for this bill in no way would have precluded the government from enacting further laws and policies that address gender-based violence. Pregnant women are sometimes attacked precisely because they are pregnant. Cassie and Molly’s Law would act to deter such violence, given the stiff penalties in the bill for purposely causing the death of the woman’s unborn child.

Criticism: C-225 might be challenged under the Charter

My MP also told me the bill “would likely be challenged under the Charter.” Yet, as far as I’m aware, there has been no credible legal opinion by any reputable lawyer arguing that the bill violates the Charter. On the contrary, renowned constitutional expert Eugene Meehan has provided a legal opinion, posted on Cathay Wagantall’s website, defending the constitutionality of the new offences created in the bill.

Most Liberal MPs voted in favour of the government’s bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying, even though several lawyers were of the opinion it was unconstitutional. So if the Liberal MPs were not deterred by the constitutional concerns regarding C-14, it is incredible that constitutional concerns were behind their opposition to Cassie and Molly’s Law.

What was the real reason for opposing C-225?

Given C-225 respects the constitution, including the Charter; given it is one concrete way that MPs can help tackle gender-based violence which they claim they want to do; and given it is supported by amajority of Canadians, it seems that MPs’ opposition to this bill stemmed from something else – something they may not have been even consciously aware of.

Which brings us to the issue of abortion.

Fear that C-225 could reopen the abortion debate

My MP told me that this bill could “reopen the abortion debate.” This bill and the abortion issue do have something in common – they both deal with pregnant women and preborn children. But anyone who is truly pro-choice ought to recognize the difference between an abortion which a woman freely chooses, and a situation where a woman has not chosen abortion and is violently attacked by a third-party who wants to kill her and/or her baby and unilaterally takes away her choice to bring her child safely to term.

So how do we account for supposedly pro-choice MPs voting against a bill that would have made it a crime to forcefully end a woman’s pregnancy against her will? Why did these MPs ignore the significant role that the woman’s free choice plays in differentiating C-225 from abortion? Are these MPs not pro-choice after all, but rather pro-abortion, even pro-forced abortion?

I don’t believe so – I don’t believe a majority of our MPs voted against C-225 because they actually believe that a dead fetus is better than a live fetus.

The only remaining explanation is that they voted against C-225 out of fear of what it would mean for abortion if we recognized in law that it can sometimes be wrong to kill a preborn child. They would have been asking themselves, even if only at an unconscious level: if it is wrong to kill a fetus during a brutal attack on a woman against her will, how can we justify abortion, which also kills a fetus?

But as MikeSchouten writing in the National Post points out, there would be no reason for anyone who is pro-choice to fear that C-225 would endanger abortion if they actually believed in their own pro-choice rhetoric: that a woman’s freedom to choose is enough to justify abortion (that is, that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.)

The defeat of C-225 was in essence, then, a sign that a majority of our MPs do not believe that freedom of choice, in and of itself, can justify abortion. A majority of our MPs could not get past focusing on how C-225 and abortion are alike (preborn child’s death), rather than how they differ (woman’s choice). It was apparently easier for our MPs to deny that it can ever be wrong to kill a fetus – and vote against C-225 – than to be put into the uncomfortable position of having to justify why abortion is not wrong. They are apparently only able to defend abortion if they deny there is any inherent value in the life of a preborn child. They would have had the confidence to defend abortion if they truly believed deep down that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.

Thus in defeating C-225 for fear it could endanger abortion, our Members of Parliament ended up revealing a lack of confidence in their own ability to defend abortion. If even our supposedly staunch “pro-choice” MPs feel so ill-quipped to defend abortion, then what kind of message does that send about the acceptability of abortion? C-225 itself could never have endangered abortion. The irony is the MPs who opposed the bill might end up doing just that.

Bill C-225 should satisfy pro-life and pro-choice people

Regarding Mike Schouten: A new bill would make it a crime to harm a fetus against a woman’s will. What’s wrong with that?

My letter published in the National Post on October 4, 2016:

It seems to me that if pro-choice people like Joyce Arthur can’t support a sensible bill like C-225 (that protects a woman’s choice to carry her pre-born child to term), it confirms one thing and one thing only: that is that they are not pro-choice at all, but rather pro-abortion. Hopefully, MPs can see this and vote accordingly. Blind ideology without common sense isn’t useful or helpful. Especially for the women who would be protected by this bill.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Choice Joyce only supports abortion choice

Opponents of Bill C-225 are endangering women and choice

For Immediate Release Ottawa, September 28, 2016 – A private member’s bill put forward by Cathay Wagantall is receiving pushback from unlikely sources. Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, has initiated a petition calling upon the House of Commons to oppose Bill C-225. The petition is sponsored by Sheila Malcolmson, MP for Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Bill C-225 ( Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act or “Cassie and Molly’s Law") addresses gender-based violence – specifically protecting pregnant women who have chosen to carry their child to term. “It is shocking that Ms. Arthur is opposed to a bill that is designed to protect choice,” said Mike Schouten of WeNeedaLAW.ca. “Cassie, who the bill is named for, chose life for her daughter Molly, but Cassie was murdered before her baby could be born. Under our laws their killer will not be brought to justice for taking the life of her daughter without her consent.” Schouten challenged Ms. Arthur and other pro-choice activists by saying, “If they truly believed that a woman’s choice is paramount, then they would have no problem justifying a woman’s choice to have a legal abortion while also supporting a law against the violent crime of killing a fetus when the pregnant woman has not  chosen abortion. If they cannot do this, the only option they support is abortion, which is really no longer a choice at all. “If choice is removed from the equation, there is nothing left to distinguish a legal abortion from a violent attack on a pregnant woman that results in the death of her wanted child. In failing to consider what distinguishes the two scenarios, these supposedly strong defenders of “choice” instead draw attention to how the two scenarios are alike: the death of a preborn child occurs, the very thing they don’t want people to think about. “In opposing C-225 out of fear that it will endanger abortion, these “pro-choice” activists end up exposing their own inability to defend abortion using a choice-based narrative. Their lack of consistency as to what “choice” really means for a woman becomes clear and thus, paradoxically, compromises choice,” concluded Schouten.​ -30-​ For further comment or interview requests please contact  Cassy Knegt at 905-347-1393 or cassy@weneedalaw.ca

Pro-life people - do not be discouraged

We need a Law announces election tour

From We need a Law:

"It is our goal that Canada's leaders don't ignore the injustice that is being committed against 100,000 of our pre-born neighbours every year. Lord willing, lifeTOUR will be hosting events in 18 cities from Charlottetown to Vancouver!

Canadians are perhaps, more than ever, fixated on important political issues during an election campaign. The 2015 election gives us a prime opportunity to inject the narrative of pre-born human rights into the issues being discussed by media and the politicians vying for Canadians' votes.

We invite you to check out lifeTOUR.ca and stay tuned for more details as the summer progresses."

Nothing "progressive" about Canada's 27 year abortion era

27 years later. And still no legal protection for pre-born children.

Mike Schouten reminds us of what Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson said after the 1988 Morgentaler decision:

"A developmental view of the foetus… supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages…The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature… It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.”

"Justice Wilson, arguably the most iconic feminist judge in the history of our country, would be labeled an “anti-choice extremist” by the more adamant of today’s pro-choice movement. Justice Wilson was abundantly clear - abortion should not be legal throughout all the stages of fetal development as it is today. In fact, she was comfortably open to a gestational ban between 12 and 18 weeks, similar to most European countries. And as the informative morgentalerdecision.ca website points out, Wilson also stated that it should be the Legislature, not the courts, to decide at precisely which stage abortion should be restricted."

So here we are in 2015. And unborn children continue to be ripped out of their mother's wombs.

Some think this is what a civilized society does: fully funded, any time, any reason, abortion on demand. Some call this "progressive." I call it regressive. I call it shameful.

Challenging the extremes

Thank goodness we have a national pro-life group (weneedaLAW.ca) that is always active, on the move, stirring things up, and telling us what they're doing while they're at it.

For instance check out Faye Sonier's legal perspective on the closing of the Morgentaler clinic in New Brunswick.

At the end of the piece Faye has a line that should make the pro-abortions flinch:

"Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves "pro-choice." Indeed, "choice" is the governing principle of their movement. "My body, my choice" is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?"

Indeed. So how do the pro-abortions reconcile "choice" with "medical necessity"? They don't. Because if you choose to have an abortion, then what could be medically necessary about it? And if an abortion is medically necessary, there isn't really a choice at all, is there? Just don't confuse the pro-abortions with the facts, I guess. They might get a headache.

Take action by sending this email to government officials in New Brunswick and Ottawa.

And We Need a Law has also done a great position paper on gestational abortion legislation. It is a logical, coherent and moral analysis on the state of abortion legislation in Canada:

The difference between Legal, Decriminalized and Regulated abortion, & why we support Gestational Limits

The paper ends with a challenge to those who don't agree with gestational legislation, inviting them to explain why:

"...gestational limits would not legalize abortion because it already is legal. We've also argued that saving some does not condone the death of those we cannot yet save. And we've tried to show that all pro-lifers already support legislative efforts that will protect only some children (in this case, the children of poor mothers). 

We want to conclude with a challenge. If you think we are wrong, please address these points one by one and explain why. Be specific. Please show how abortion in Canada is, in any sense, not already completely legal right now. Show how a gestational limit that will protect only some differs morally from a defunding effort that will protect only some. And explain why those who saved Jewish children weren't condoning the death of their parents (who they couldn't save), but today when we try to save some pre-born children (via a gestational limit) we are supposedly condoning the death of the children we aren't able to save.

100 crosses = 1,000 abortions in Canada every year

March 31, 2014

Ottawa, ON -Last week a local group in Elgin County, ON set up a massive abortion memorial along Hwy. 3 just outside of Aylmer.

“Roadside memorials are commonplace alongside many thoroughfares in Canada. They serve as respectful reminders of people who once were alive, and are now gone,” said Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

“Similar to the many other abortion memorials that continue to be set up across the country, this memorial consists of hay bales and crosses. Each of the 100 crosses represents one thousand lives lost to abortion in Canada every year,” continued Schouten.

The hay bales and crosses are accompanied by signs from WeNeedaLAW.ca and ARPA Oxford. There are also pictures of a pre-born child and a Bible passage.

“We applaud ARPA Oxford for this initiative. As a nation we are more and more recognizing that abortion is an injustice against vulnerable members of the human family and something needs to be done about Canada's lack of protection for pre-born children at any stage of development,” concluded Schouten.

RU-486 is a bad idea

We should be very cautious about approving the abortion drug RU-486 in Canada. There are health concerns about this drug, and this alone should cause us grave concern. But what about our democratic rights? As Mike Schouten at weneedalaw.ca says:

"The Conservative government along with all the political parties in Ottawa have denounced any attempts at debating abortion in the House of Commons. That Health Canada could approve RU-486 through the proverbial backdoor is contrary to democratic principles that should allow for an abortion discussion"

And speaking about democracy (or lack there of) what about the fact that in Ontario right now, no person can do a Freedom of Information request on anything related to abortion services?

This would mean that any and all information (in Ontario) regarding this new drug, like how many abortions occurred using the drug, what complications women are experiencing from the drug, how many deaths are attributable to it, etc. would now be completely hidden from us.

Since most abortions in Canada are done in Ontario, and if RU-486 is approved, we can extrapolate that most of the RU-486 abortions will also be done in Ontario. And because everything related to abortion is now hidden in Ontario, any complications, how many prescriptions doctor's write, etc.--all will be hidden under a cloak of secrecy. By allowing RU-486, the federal government will be just exacerbating the abortion cover-up in provinces like Ontario (and BC to a certain extent as well).

In Ontario, in 2010 there were at least 44,000 abortions performed in Ontario. That's 53% more than officially reported by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) (CIHI only reported 28,765). 

CIHI already does not report medical abortions, as well as abortions done in doctor's offices. And now with RU-486, none of those abortions will be reported either.

Women will be getting more and more access to abortion, while we get less and less information about these abortions. This is a deadly combination for women.

The other grave concern we should have with RU-486 for the women taking it, is for those women who may live in remote areas of the country, and/or places where abortions are not currently available.

In this article by the CBC, Dawn Fowler, the Canadian director of the National Abortion Federation, says it can take a day or two for women in rural and remote communities to travel to a bigger centre to have an abortion. She says that this is "about delivering safe, quality care". 

Yet in remote parts of our country, like reservations, there are very good reasons why this drug should not be made available to women because it won't be safe. If a women has a serious problem while taking this new drug, and if she is in need of expert medical care to treat her for that problem, that care may not be readily available to her in these remote or unserviced places, putting the women at great personal risk.

We already know that--contrary to what abortion advocates like to tell us--abortion is already not safe. Many say that abortion complication rates are less than 1%. Yet Echo, an Ontario government "pro-choice" agency, informs us that complication rates for abortions are actually between 6.95% and7.70%:

NDP MP Libby Davies says approving RU-486 is important to a lot of women who do not have access to reproductive choice. My goodness, Ms. Davies is a woman and a Member of Parliament. Surely she can get out of the way of her own ideology to see the potential danger this drug can have on women.

With this kind of advocacy for this deadly drug coming from the powerful National Abortion Federation, and from the ideological NDP, women's health will take a back seat to the abortion industry's and pharmaceuticals' profits.

RU-486 is bad for all of us. This drug should not be approved.

Protecting the innocent - why man invented criminal law

In December in the National Post, Mike Schouten commented on Maurice Vellacott's motions M-482 and M-483.

Schouten said:

"The Supreme Court justices of 1988 would never have anticipated a 25 year legal vacuum surrounding the rights of children before birth. They struck down Canada’s abortion law on constitutional grounds, but were very clear that it was the mandate of Parliament to enact new laws protecting pre-born children. In fact, even Justice Bertha Wilson opined as to where protections should be placed when she said, “The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seem to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” In light of this judgement, as well as more recent jurisprudence in this area, it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to study the impact of the status quo in our law."

A letter writer didn't agree that an abortion law was needed. The letter writer said:

"Any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed. Laws cannot impose compassion and understanding. I feel that any woman who is contemplating aborting her fetus is in acute need of support or treatment. It follows that any action that addresses her mental, emotional or physical health is to be decided as an individual case. The law is not the instrument of choice to handle such a situation."

I responded with this letter:

Letter-writer Ruedi Mueller feels that a law is unnecessary to protect the unborn, as “any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed.” Since crimes against humans always involve emotions (like rape or murder), his reasoning makes no sense. We create laws to protect the innocent; it is exactly why man invented criminal law. Preborn children are the prime victims in abortion and they are incapable of protecting themselves. As a civilized society, it is up to the rest of us to make sure that we provide that legal protection. 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

MP Maurice Vellacott puts two motions on the Notice Paper

As Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca points out, Mr. Vellacott has given Canadians two early Christmas presents.

See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.

M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “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“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

Summer update from weneedaLAW

Social Conservatives and Stephen Harper

Mike Schouten: Memo to Harper — the abortion issue isn’t going away

Schouten says:

"His actions [Harper's], especially regarding Motion 408, have caused division within his own party. Approximately one quarter of Mr. Harper’s voting base are social conservatives and adamantly pro-life. These are the folks who have been the foot soldiers in the Conservatives’ rise to success. If Harper will not allow even a discussion to take place on this issue — if he prefers to kowtow to Canada’s most militant feminists (none of whom are ever going to vote for him anyway — then he will isolate many of his supporters. Why should these people continue to work for his party, or even show up to vote for it?

In fact, political pundits are openly opining that a new leadership race in the Conservative party could well happen before 2015 — partly because of this issue. In response to CCBR’s project, long-time politico and former PMO Chief of Staff Norman Spector commented on Twitter: “Why Stephen Harper won’t be running in 2015.”

Maybe it's time for the Conservative Party to call for a leadership race. If they don't, the party may very well lose its Social Conservative votes, which as Schouten points out, is at least a quarter of the party. I suggest the party pay attention to the abortion issue. If they don't, they do so at their own peril. It's their call.

Looking for a home (updated)

In today's National Post Andrew Coyne: Manning Conference makes one wonder how long conservative movement can keep from tearing itself apart

Mr. Coyne talks about all the different kinds of conservatism and how the current Harper Conservatives are not any of them. And this is what Mr. Coyne says about us:
"Social conservatives? Pretty much their only demand — more of a request, really — is for some sort of restriction, however mild, on the availability of abortion, in the only country in the democratic world that has none. For their troubles, they have been rewarded with a ban on even discussing it."

How true is that?

Mr. Coyne ends with this:
"I’ve never been quite clear on what progressive conservatives believe, but whatever it is, it’s not Harperism. And while I agree that free-market environmentalism ought to be part of any modern conservative coalition, it is difficult to find it in a government that boasts of taking the most top-down, regulatory-heavy approach possible to climate change — precisely because it does not take it seriously. Democratic conservatives? Don’t make me laugh. Even decentralization, the obsession of constitutional conservatives, has been fitful at best.

And yet the base remains, on the whole, quiescent. One has to wonder how long this can last."

Indeed. So where do we go from here? Can we depend on the Conservative party anymore? If not, where do we find a home? Are we even trying to find a home?

UPDATE:
Mike Schouten over at WeNeedaLaw.ca writes more on this  "Cognitive dissonance" today.

Here is part of what Mr. Schouten wrote:
"...The campaign I am directing had an exhibit at the Manning Networking Conference and in all my conversations on the floor of the Ottawa Convention Centre there was no one who affirmed the status quo; all expressed a level of discomfort with Canada standing alone among Western nations with no protection for pre-born human rights. There is common ground among conservatives, yet, as Coyne aptly notes, “They have been rewarded with a ban on even discussing [abortion].”

The release of “The Big Shift” by John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker surely has Mr. Harper and those close to him feeling emboldened to continue making incremental changes to shift Canada to the right. That the so-called ‘Laurentian elites’ no longer run the country may be of some comfort to grassroots conservatives, but the growing disconnect between so-called ‘Harperism’ and conservatism is of great concern and the quiet can only last so long.

While the cognitive dissonance still exists for some voters who cling to an ideology that ignores what science and philosophy have to say about the humanity of children in the womb, there is a huge shift underway in Canada in how we regard pre-born human rights. The numbers of those opposed to the status quo, especially among Canada’s youth, are growing. We are witnessing a youth movement unwilling to blindly accept the dogma of the previous generation and who are making decisions informed by science and reason. They are displaying a passion for responding to injustices, manifested by the sheer numbers of young Canadian women and men involved in the battle for the protection of all human beings, no matter their location..."

Banning late-term abortions: it's time

Mike Schouten and the WeNeedaLAW people explain their position in today's National Post: Why Canada should ban late-term abortions

And here on their website they have a Q&A with more information and answers to many people's concerns about gestational legislation: Frequently Asked Questions for We Need a Law

Here is an analogy they use for why their position makes sense:
"Working towards the goal of saving all pre-born children, but only being able to save some is not a compromise.

We can use analogies to help understand why saving some is not compromising the principle that every life is valuable. Imagine you are at the lake and witness a pleasure boat sinking. Upon seeing the crisis develop, you jump into your small inflatable dingy and paddle as fast as you can to the scene. When you arrive you see eight people without life preservers desperately trying to stay afloat.. Their boat is nowhere to be seen. Your dingy is much too small for everyone but you begin helping them from the water. You manage to fit three of the eight people in your small dingy and begin the journey to shore. When they are safely in the arms of onlookers you race back to get some more. Unfortunately they couldn’t swim and have disappeared to the depths of the lake. In the shock of what transpired you remind yourself that you did everything you could and saved as many as possible. You wanted to save them all, but considering the resources you had available (a small boat), you did what you could."

I think it's time we finally do something about getting behind legislation like WeNeedaLAW is proposing. The absence of legal protection for the pre-born has gone on long enough. 

And we know that 60% of Canadians would support such a law so what are we waiting for?

It's time to act.

Are abortion guidelines enough?

The Insufficiency of Guidelines

Written by Mike Schouten

Canada should do away with its drunk driving laws. We no longer need laws prohibiting this activity. In fact, the laws that are in place are ineffective (because people break them anyway). And enforcing them places an incredible financial burden on governments already strapped for cash.

A much better solution would be to toss the laws and let people use their own better judgement as to wether they were impaired or not. And, if there was any concern about members of the public being unable to choose for themselves as to how many drinks they could consume prior to getting behind the wheel of a car, we could provide them with guidelines for assistance. If need be, we could even host an education program at the local community centre.

What do you think? Good idea? Who needs laws anyway?

Crazy idea? Absolutely!

Canada has laws against drinking and driving for good reasons. Laws restrict certain behaviours and punish those who disobey them. Through legal restrictions the state decides what we can do with our bodies, and in a sense, laws grant people freedom.

You can imagine how terrifying it would be to drive the streets of your town or city knowing that drunk driving was legal. Although some people do indeed break laws, generally speaking, we feel safe knowing that certain harmful actions are restricted by the authorities.

A recent debate in the House of Commons has prompted many discussions in mainstream media and the blogosphere about another law. An abortion law. Even though Motion 312 introduced by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth would have no bearing on Canadian law whatsoever, pro-choice groups have brought out all the artillery to oppose this common sense suggestion by Mr. Woodworth.

Among the many reasons given for not having this debate is that there is no need for a law, as the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) already has guidelines in place. Joyce Arthur, executive director for Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) went so far as to dedicate an entire portion of the ARCC website to counter arguments to Motion 312. One of these arguments states, “Doctors abide by a Canadian Medical Association policy that recommends abortion on request only up to 20 weeks gestation.”

Now, it’s true, the CMA has guidelines in place which set the viability of the fetus at twenty weeks. But that’s all they are, guidelines. And the latest statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information reveal that they’re not working. Even though reporting is incomplete due to secrecy policies in some jurisdictions (less than ¼ of the abortions reported divulged the gestational age of the child), the stats show there were 537 abortions post 21 weeks gestation in 2010. Clearly, guidelines are not preventing viable fetuses from being aborted.

Just as we would never settle for guidelines when it comes to drunk driving, we shouldn’t when it comes to the lives of innocent, pre-born children. Without laws that prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol many innocent people’s lives would be violently ended. So also, without laws prohibiting late term abortions, viable pre-born children are also having their lives violently ended.

Canada needs an abortion law. Every other democracy in the world recognizes that guidelines don’t suffice, and therefore has legal protections in place.

When will Canada?

Mike Schouten is director of  weneedaLAW.ca - Reprinted with permission from the author

Abortion is a social justice issue

Mike Schouten wrote in the National Post on May 25 that many voters see abortion as a social justice issue, and that Mr. Harper may be paying the price for shutting down the abortion debate.

I agree.

Mr. Schouten says:
"The Prime Minister believes that an abortion debate would hurt his party in the polls. I submit the opposite: Paradoxically, the recent drop in support for Harper’s party may have something to do from his refusal to act as a principled social-justice champion on an issue that many of his (former) supporters care about."

Then a letter writer responded with this:
"I also support Stephen Harper's decision to not open the abortion debate. I believe that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations...proabortion persons equally must have the opportunity to live according to their belief system. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to make their choices about abortion and the Prime Minister is correct in not opening up this divisive issue."

To which I responded with this letter. Below is the full text of that letter to the editor:

The letter writer "believe[s] that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations". Let's say that I have just decided that my "life situation" includes my choice to murder someone. Would he support that? He might argue that murder is not legal. Agreed, but being legal, doesn't make something moral or right.

For instance, in many countries in the world female genital mutilation is fully legal, but I don't imagine the writer supports this practice. Yet in these countries where this practice is performed, sanctioned and legal, it occurs because like "pro-abortion persons", pro-female-genital-mutilation persons also wish to "equally...have the opportunity to live according to their belief system."

A belief system is no guarantee of legitimacy or of rightness.