By Rebecca Peters
Pregnancy care centres have been accused of being anti-choice with hidden, secret agendas. Let’s take a look at the situation.
Most local pregnancy care centres are faith-based. But what does that mean? Quite simply, it means that everything they do is based on their love for God and the truth of the Bible – that all life has value. That’s it. Everyone that works at a centre, whether staff or volunteer, shares these beliefs. They don’t preach them. They simply live them, by loving and honouring all life and every person that walks through the door, regardless of that person’s age, race, gender, or religion.
Pregnancy care centres offer medically accurate information on all three options available to a woman when she is pregnant – abortion, adoption, and parenting. The information is presented in a straightforward and unbiased way, because centres believe that when given accurate information, women are smart enough and fully capable of making the best decision for themselves. The only suggestion made to a woman facing a pregnancy decision is – take the time needed to make this important life decision.
Pregnancy care centres are not political. In fact, they are very careful in their words and their actions to stay away from controversy and politics. What they care about is meeting a woman where she is at and walking alongside her. No politics, no agendas. Centres provide a non-judgemental and confidential, safe place to be real and be heard. They offer resources, referrals, material supports, and programs. All for free, all regardless of the woman’s decision.
Pregnancy care centres are actually very much pro-woman. They are there for the woman – before, during, and after pregnancy … even if that pregnancy ends in abortion. Pre-pregnancy: education is provided on healthy relationships. During pregnancy: information is offered and support is given in the form of prenatal education and free maternity clothes and baby supplies. Post-pregnancy: centres provide a safe and supportive community, either in the form of parenting classes or post-abortion groups and support.
Yes, the staff and volunteers at pregnancy care centres love babies. But they love the woman too. Because they know it’s not easy, some of them have worn the exact same shoes … the shoes that walk into a doctor’s office with dread and walk out of an abortion clinic with a broken heart.
Pregnancy care centres believe every woman has the right to make a well-informed choice, with all of the facts and unconditional love and support.
This article originally appeared at Faith Today. Reprinted with permission by the author.
Rebecca Peters is Communications Liaison for the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (www.capss.com), an affiliate organization of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, publisher of Faith Today (Canada’s Christian magazine).
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Friday, June 9, 2017
Saturday, April 12, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Planned Parenthood targets young women
I just watched this video produced by Planned Parenthood in Northern UK,
There are a whole series of them and they feature a really happy chirpy 20-something young lady.
I've watched a couple of the videos, and the young lady is happy happy happy in all of them. I also looked through the series and couldn't find any of these videos on those other choices. You know the ones where a woman keeps her child, or puts her up for adoption? No no, only abortion, contraception, emergency contraception, etc.
Here are a few quotes from the video:
There are a whole series of them and they feature a really happy chirpy 20-something young lady.
I've watched a couple of the videos, and the young lady is happy happy happy in all of them. I also looked through the series and couldn't find any of these videos on those other choices. You know the ones where a woman keeps her child, or puts her up for adoption? No no, only abortion, contraception, emergency contraception, etc.
Here are a few quotes from the video:
I realize that abortion is a big scary word but maybe it doesn't have to be. Scrape away all the myths and the political debate. All the sexism, all the stigma. And you have a perfectly safe medical procedure, that's an important option for a woman to have if she becomes pregnant before she's ready. (who's politicizing what PP?)
Medication abortion: This is where medication is used to do what what would happen naturally if you had a miscarriage. (PP are you equating a medical abortion to a miscarriage??)
Aspiration abortion: Uses a gentle suction to remove the pregnancy. A little tube that will empty out the contents of the uterus. And afterwards you get a snack, because we all need snacks!!! (Got to "remove that pregnancy" or the "contents of the uterus". Never use the word unborn child or fetus. Better not to go there eh PP??)
Dilation and evacuation. For pregnancies that are a little farther along. On the second day you will have the pregnancy removed. (there's that removal of that darned pregnancy again)
I definitely think that all the stigma and politicization about abortion can make things that more complicated. (still not politicizing PP??)And from the one on Emergency contraception.
There is a little mythy myth floating around out there, that Emergency Contraception is the same thing as an abortion pill. That's not true. It only prevents pregnancy if you're not already pregnant. It's not going to do anything if you are already pregnant. (Really PP??)Super cheap marketing tool for Planned Parenthood. I have to admit, they're smart, those Planned Parenthood folks. Get young women to use social media to market their pre-born baby killing services. (OMG PP is so, like, amazing!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!)
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Why not adoption?
I was gobsmacked today, when I heard that only 2% of single women who face an unplanned pregnancy, choose adoption. That is unbelievable.
This morning Anastasia Bowles, program director of Adoption in Canada at LifeCanada spoke to Shelley McLean at CFRA about adoption. Listen to the six minute podcast. It is the entry for November 27 at 6:17 AM. You might learn something new about adoption. I did.
Anastasia tells us that there is a lot of confusion out there about how adoption is practiced. She clears up some of the negative connotations on adoption.
She also tells us that a woman these days has much more control about the adoption process than in days gone by. Like how there can be open adoptions where the woman can select the adoptive parents. How she can negotiate for future contact with her child with the adoptive parents. That adoptions don't cost the birth mother anything.
A woman places her child for adoption, or entrusts her child; she doesn't give up her child.
One of the issues that Adoption in Canada is hoping to address, is that there isn't enough post-adoption support out there, and this is something LifeCanada is working on. They have created a website with resources and information on adoption.
Adoption is a good thing. It gives a child the chance to live her life. It gives loving parents a child. What could be more important than this?
This morning Anastasia Bowles, program director of Adoption in Canada at LifeCanada spoke to Shelley McLean at CFRA about adoption. Listen to the six minute podcast. It is the entry for November 27 at 6:17 AM. You might learn something new about adoption. I did.
Anastasia tells us that there is a lot of confusion out there about how adoption is practiced. She clears up some of the negative connotations on adoption.
She also tells us that a woman these days has much more control about the adoption process than in days gone by. Like how there can be open adoptions where the woman can select the adoptive parents. How she can negotiate for future contact with her child with the adoptive parents. That adoptions don't cost the birth mother anything.
A woman places her child for adoption, or entrusts her child; she doesn't give up her child.
One of the issues that Adoption in Canada is hoping to address, is that there isn't enough post-adoption support out there, and this is something LifeCanada is working on. They have created a website with resources and information on adoption.
Adoption is a good thing. It gives a child the chance to live her life. It gives loving parents a child. What could be more important than this?
Monday, February 27, 2012
Ontario taxpayers fund biased organizations that call for more abortion (is your province next?)
(This article was published in the January/February 2012 issue of LifeCanada Journal)
The provision of abortion services falls under provincial jurisdiction. If we want to change the status quo provincially, we first need to know what's going on in each of our provinces.
This must begin with reliable statistics on abortion, which we don't currently have, and haven't had for some time. We know that CIHI's yearly reported abortion numbers are low and that it is not legislated that clinics report their abortions.
We also need to know what provincial governments are doing in each of the provinces.
Take Ontario for instance.
The Ontario government has set up an agency called ECHO to look at "women's" issues. Echo is 100% funded with Ontario tax dollars. Their revenues come from government grants ($2,338,423 in 2010, and $1,373,999 in 2009).
One of Echo's three primary targeted areas of focus is sexual and reproductive health. These words should always raise a red flag. In this case the flag is very red and very big.
Echo has only had two years of full operation and already they are making recommendations that may surprise you.
Here are just a few of them (other recommendations are listed at the end):
· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over
· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion
· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.
· Changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).
· Advocate for the approval of the use of mifepristone (in combination with misoprostol) in Canada. This medication allows medical termination up to nine weeks’ gestation in a safe and effective form that is not currently available in Canada. The lack of available access to this drug means that Canadian women are being served by inferior choices and subject to greater risk. (Note what Andre Lalonde, vicepresident of the SOGC said about medical abortions:
The provision of abortion services falls under provincial jurisdiction. If we want to change the status quo provincially, we first need to know what's going on in each of our provinces.
This must begin with reliable statistics on abortion, which we don't currently have, and haven't had for some time. We know that CIHI's yearly reported abortion numbers are low and that it is not legislated that clinics report their abortions.
We also need to know what provincial governments are doing in each of the provinces.
Take Ontario for instance.
The Ontario government has set up an agency called ECHO to look at "women's" issues. Echo is 100% funded with Ontario tax dollars. Their revenues come from government grants ($2,338,423 in 2010, and $1,373,999 in 2009).
One of Echo's three primary targeted areas of focus is sexual and reproductive health. These words should always raise a red flag. In this case the flag is very red and very big.
Echo has only had two years of full operation and already they are making recommendations that may surprise you.
Here are just a few of them (other recommendations are listed at the end):
· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over
· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion
· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.
· Changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).
· Advocate for the approval of the use of mifepristone (in combination with misoprostol) in Canada. This medication allows medical termination up to nine weeks’ gestation in a safe and effective form that is not currently available in Canada. The lack of available access to this drug means that Canadian women are being served by inferior choices and subject to greater risk. (Note what Andre Lalonde, vicepresident of the SOGC said about medical abortions:
"We believe this will open up the access and make abortion easier. It can be done from a doctor's office, rather than a clinic or hospital. It's more confidential. Antiabortion groups won't know about it.” (emphasis added).
The report's experts didn't bother to solicit the advice of those of us who are not pro-abortion. By their own admission, of those chosen for their "expert panel", none "opposed abortion".
This is what happens when we allow our provincial governments to appoint pro-choice "experts" to look at abortion accessibility in a province. Not really a surprise, since a biased organization will probably yield biased solutions.
In fact, the recommendations didn’t even look at adoptions or crisis pregnancy centres as options to unwanted pregnancies. Instead they want to see all pregnancy counselling include abortion. Certainly this would be the death of the freedom of choice to set up a crisis pregnancy centre that would not promote abortion.
The mandate of this Ontario pro-abortion lobby is to advise the Premier, MPPs, and the Ministry of Health and to "provide input into government policy." Presumably the Ontario government is already considering these recommendations.
Further, recommendations that we need more access to abortion services is even more troubling since a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Long Term care, revealed that Ontario spent 30% more on abortions in 2010 than expected (based on 2009 CIHI numbers, the last year CIHI has reported on).
What if other provinces are also under-reporting their numbers? And by how much? If we extrapolate the 30% across the country, that could mean 122,000 abortions in Canada per year.
There is some good news.
For instance, in Alberta, young pro-lifers from Calgary are petitioning the Alberta government to bring a halt to paying for abortions. The campaign to Defund Abortion in Alberta is a grassroots initiative started by university and college students, mostly from Calgary, seeking to eliminate public funding for abortion and to support conscience rights for taxpayers.
PEI has been in the news as well. The Island does not provide for abortions, although they do pay for abortions PEI women to get in a Halifax hospital with a doctor's referral. There has been activity on both sides of this debate. The latest is that the status quo will remain--for now.
In conclusion, we first need more reliable statistics about abortions in every province in order to put real numbers to abortions performed. We can do this by submitting FOI's in all provinces to discover what doctors actually billed for their abortion services. FOIs could also reveal the hidden number of abortion procedures being done in clinics across the country, as well as the number of medical abortions being performed (CIHI does not currently report medical abortions).
Second, we need to find out what's going on in the provincial Health Ministries’ bureaucracies. What other so-called expert panels are there like Echo, who will recommend more abortion access, later gestation abortions, and take away the medical professions' conscience rights? In other words, are your tax dollars funding abortion advocates to advise your government like in Ontario?
If these Ontario recommendations are implemented, we can only assume other provinces will follow suit.
More details on Echo's recommendations (these were omitted from the print version of this article):
· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over as a provincial resource since these procedures are less frequently required, are higher risk.
· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion. There are many providers of pregnancy counselling; however, not all providers discuss abortion services as an option. This interferes with women’s ability to determine how to proceed in a timely fashion should she wish to have an abortion.
· Ensure abortion procedures, sexual and reproductive health- related medical ethics are part of core content of sexual and reproductive health curricula in medical, nursing and midwifery education programs.
· In particular, it is recommended that: Accreditation bodies must require mandatory sexual and reproductive health curriculum in medical school training; this should include associated elements of medical ethics through use of case studies.
· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.
· Obstetrical/Gynecology residency training. Obstetrical/Gynecology residency programs are encouraged to implement and/or promote the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program (a privately funded initiative that strives to integrate and enhance family planning training for obstetrics and gynecology residents in the US and Canada).
· Family Medicine training programs should be encouraged to support a 3rd year residency program in Family Medicine for Women’s Care which includes comprehensive abortion training. Support the CPSO in changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).
The report's experts didn't bother to solicit the advice of those of us who are not pro-abortion. By their own admission, of those chosen for their "expert panel", none "opposed abortion".
This is what happens when we allow our provincial governments to appoint pro-choice "experts" to look at abortion accessibility in a province. Not really a surprise, since a biased organization will probably yield biased solutions.
In fact, the recommendations didn’t even look at adoptions or crisis pregnancy centres as options to unwanted pregnancies. Instead they want to see all pregnancy counselling include abortion. Certainly this would be the death of the freedom of choice to set up a crisis pregnancy centre that would not promote abortion.
The mandate of this Ontario pro-abortion lobby is to advise the Premier, MPPs, and the Ministry of Health and to "provide input into government policy." Presumably the Ontario government is already considering these recommendations.
Further, recommendations that we need more access to abortion services is even more troubling since a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Long Term care, revealed that Ontario spent 30% more on abortions in 2010 than expected (based on 2009 CIHI numbers, the last year CIHI has reported on).
What if other provinces are also under-reporting their numbers? And by how much? If we extrapolate the 30% across the country, that could mean 122,000 abortions in Canada per year.
There is some good news.
For instance, in Alberta, young pro-lifers from Calgary are petitioning the Alberta government to bring a halt to paying for abortions. The campaign to Defund Abortion in Alberta is a grassroots initiative started by university and college students, mostly from Calgary, seeking to eliminate public funding for abortion and to support conscience rights for taxpayers.
PEI has been in the news as well. The Island does not provide for abortions, although they do pay for abortions PEI women to get in a Halifax hospital with a doctor's referral. There has been activity on both sides of this debate. The latest is that the status quo will remain--for now.
In conclusion, we first need more reliable statistics about abortions in every province in order to put real numbers to abortions performed. We can do this by submitting FOI's in all provinces to discover what doctors actually billed for their abortion services. FOIs could also reveal the hidden number of abortion procedures being done in clinics across the country, as well as the number of medical abortions being performed (CIHI does not currently report medical abortions).
Second, we need to find out what's going on in the provincial Health Ministries’ bureaucracies. What other so-called expert panels are there like Echo, who will recommend more abortion access, later gestation abortions, and take away the medical professions' conscience rights? In other words, are your tax dollars funding abortion advocates to advise your government like in Ontario?
If these Ontario recommendations are implemented, we can only assume other provinces will follow suit.
More details on Echo's recommendations (these were omitted from the print version of this article):
· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over as a provincial resource since these procedures are less frequently required, are higher risk.
· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion. There are many providers of pregnancy counselling; however, not all providers discuss abortion services as an option. This interferes with women’s ability to determine how to proceed in a timely fashion should she wish to have an abortion.
· Ensure abortion procedures, sexual and reproductive health- related medical ethics are part of core content of sexual and reproductive health curricula in medical, nursing and midwifery education programs.
· In particular, it is recommended that: Accreditation bodies must require mandatory sexual and reproductive health curriculum in medical school training; this should include associated elements of medical ethics through use of case studies.
· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.
· Obstetrical/Gynecology residency training. Obstetrical/Gynecology residency programs are encouraged to implement and/or promote the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program (a privately funded initiative that strives to integrate and enhance family planning training for obstetrics and gynecology residents in the US and Canada).
· Family Medicine training programs should be encouraged to support a 3rd year residency program in Family Medicine for Women’s Care which includes comprehensive abortion training. Support the CPSO in changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Adoption instead of abortion
Couples can now "reduce" a pregnancy from twins to one child (the abortion euphemisms just keep getting more creative).
And therein lies the problem with the slippery slope of no legal protection for the unborn in Canada. A child can already be aborted for any reason, so why would this shock anyone? We know that abortions occur for sex selection; because a pregnancy is inconvenient; for contraception; for eugenics (not quite a perfect baby); for...just fill in the blanks.
What I would like to know--and this is a topic the pro-abortions don't waste any ink on--why can't women put that unwanted child up for adoption? There are many couples who would love to have a child that another couple wants to abort. But these people say "oh I couldn't put my child up for adoption". Oh, but you could abort it?
Check out the new campaign that is promoting Adoption: Wow, adoption instead of abortion. What a good idea.
And therein lies the problem with the slippery slope of no legal protection for the unborn in Canada. A child can already be aborted for any reason, so why would this shock anyone? We know that abortions occur for sex selection; because a pregnancy is inconvenient; for contraception; for eugenics (not quite a perfect baby); for...just fill in the blanks.
What I would like to know--and this is a topic the pro-abortions don't waste any ink on--why can't women put that unwanted child up for adoption? There are many couples who would love to have a child that another couple wants to abort. But these people say "oh I couldn't put my child up for adoption". Oh, but you could abort it?
Check out the new campaign that is promoting Adoption: Wow, adoption instead of abortion. What a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)