Outaouais pays for dangerous abortion pill

Abortion pill in the Outaouais

So the abortion pill is now accessible in the Outaouais region and paid for by taxpayers. Women who have already experienced the nausea and cramps linked to emergency contraception (“morning after pill”), well, take this horrible experience and multiply it by ten. That’s what chemical abortion is, only it can last for hours and even days. The body we see in the toilet, all charred and dismembered (or elsewhere, because there is no control over where and when the process culminates), it leaves a mark for quite some time. The violent contractions required to expulse the baby often bring on hemorrhage and other serious damage to the female apparatus. How sad that women’s bodies be treated as “crushers”. Not too great for self-esteem. To top it all off, there must be a follow-up check-up to ensure that all body parts and organs have been expulsed, and surgical curettage can be required to avoid general septicemia (poisoning).

Isabelle and Ward O'Connor, Vivere Canada
Montcerf-Lytton, Quebec, Canada

Catholic universities don't need to defend illegal abortions

My letter in the National Post last Friday:

Re: Tories accused of selective bias. Marie- Danielle Smith, Nov. 28

Science Minister Kirsty Duncan thinks the Tories should comment on the cancelling of the pro-abortion film Vessels at St. Paul’s University for free speech reasons.

First of all, this movie is about a doctor who takes her abortion trade to the open seas. Why? So she can provide abortions to women on a ship in offshore waters. Why? So she can bypass the country’s abortion laws and provide the abortion pill RU486 to women. This doctor is engaging in illegal activities to bypass the laws of sovereign countries.

Second, St. Paul’s University is a Catholic institution. Catholic institutions don’t condone abortion because Catholicism believes that abortion is an immoral act and is harmful to the woman and her family.

Duncan’s press secretary stated: “In a free society, we may disagree with a person’s views, but we must defence (sic) their right to hold them — unless those views promote hate.”

What about when those views promote illegal activities? Should we defend those views as well? I hope not. 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa