National Post and Linda Gibbons

Dear Christie,

Thank you so much for writing this fair story in the National Post. As I'm sure you have guessed by now, Linda is a pro-life hero. I've never seen coverage of Linda's arrest in the Globe, and I don't expect to.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/

Graphic horrors of death

From the Globe's editorial board.

Migrant crisis? No, Europe is facing a moral crisis

“In a world filled with graphic horrors, the Western media have become increasingly squeamish about showing what war, famine or death actually look like. There is an understandable fear of upsetting the audience, and a well-founded reluctance to be seen making a market out of the suffering of others. But some upsetting images demand to be seen, precisely because they are a true representation of reality. They show us the world as it is, its cruelties exposed, and not the world as we would wish it to be. And by the shock to our eyes, our conscience may be stirred.”

-Globe and Mail, September 3, 2015

Moral crisis, yes. But the boy who died is just one tragedy. Abortion is thousands.

RU-486 - myth #1 - drug is safe and effective

I hope Health Canada reads Renate Klein's book (RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals) before they approve RU-486. The book contains a lot of disturbing information about this dangerous drug. Information that I notice is conspicuously missing of late, from the pro-abortions' cries to have the drug approved (especially the Globe and Mail) here, here and here.

It's important to realize that Renate Klein is pro-choice.

The pro-abortions think the drug is "safe and effective". Renate Klein, the author of RU486, has issues with this sentiment:

"Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy." (Page xiv in the Preface)

Klein tells us about Regine Sitruk-Ware, an early researcher from France.

"Sitruk-Ware confirms that an average of 10% of women suffered from excessive bleeding, another 1.4% required hemorrhage-controlling curettage, and .25% a blood transfusion. These numbers appear low but extrapolated to approximately 1.5% million women in the USA alone who, according to the FDA, by 2011 had undergone an RU-486/PG abortion, this amounts to approximately 150,000 women who bled excessively, 21,000 who had to endure a second procedure (a curettage to terminate their pregnancy); and 3750 women who needed a life-saving blood transfusion." (emphasis mine) (Page xv-xvi in the Preface)

Then then there are infections: A Canadian woman died in 2001 from septic shock, after an infection with the anaerobic bacterium Clostridium sordellii. Seven US women died in 2005 from septic shock after being infected with the same bacterium. Klein states:

"The particular danger is that C. sordellii does not cause fever, so in the absence of warning sighs, the infection spreads."

Then an Australian woman died on 2010 by an aerobic Streptococcus A infection.

There is also potential danger to the fetus if in a failed abortion, the pregnancy continues, because of unknown risks to the fetus.

According to Klein, Sitruk-Ware also warns against taking RU 486/PG for women with:

"allergies, renal failure, liver failure, and malnutrition, due to the fact that specific studies have not been conducted on impaired metabolism after use of RU 486/PG. Her warning against [its] use to women with malnutrition--if taken seriously--would eliminate its use for women in poor countries (where anemia is endemic) who are said to be the major beneficiaries of RU/486PG abortion by its eager promoters." (Page xvii in the Preface)

Then Klein warns that most adverse affects, are not even reported to the DFA:

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published 'A postmarketing Events Summary' up to 30 April in 2011. It contains a list of adverse events that are reported to the FDA. We should bear in mind that only between l and and 10% of` adverse reactions to medicines are ever reported to the FDA; in other words the real numbers of adverse effects could be even 100 times higher. (emphasis mine)

With this proviso in mind, in 2011, the FDA recorded 2,207 adverse events; 14 deaths; 612 hospitalizations (excluding deaths); 58 ectopic pregnancies; 339 women who experienced blood loss requiring transfusions; and 256 infections, 48 of which were `severe' (2011a). 

Of the US deaths, the FDA reports that 8 were associated with sepsis (7 tested positive for C. sordellii, 1 for C. peifringens, another anaerobic bacterium). The FDA also mentions 5 more deaths from other countries." (Page xxiii-xxiv in the Preface)

What some pro-choice doctors say about RU486/PG

...the New York Times reported that even a number of `pro-choice' doctors voiced concern over the dangers of RU 486/PG abortion. One was Dr Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, who said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU 486 (called Mifeprex in the USA), were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr Hern said. "Pills are a lousy way to perform an abortion" (in Harris, April 2006) . Dr James McGregor, a visiting professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California, said RU 486 might make women more susceptible to C. sordellii in part because the drug may inhibit mechanisms that moderate immunity. In cases of toxic shock, the body's immune response becomes lethal. "The body ends up attacking itself, and RU-486 may encourage this attack" Dr McGregor said (in Harris, May 2006) . The FDA put a `Black Box Warning' on RU 486's Patient Information alerting health professionals and users to the risk of serious and sometimes fatal infection and insisting that oral misoprostol be used. (A Black Box warning required by the FDA of a pharmaceutical company to put on its Patient Information sheet, is the strongest warning. It means that medical studies indicate that the drug carries a significant risk of serious or even life-threatening adverse effects.)" (Page xiv-xxv in the Preface)

More later.

RU-486 can be lethal for women in remote areas

RU-486 (mifepristone) is a nasty drug. And Health Canada is considering approving it for abortions. 

The CBC thinks this is marvelous news:

"Approval of the drug would provide greater access to medical abortion for women in rural or remote parts of Canada."

And the Globe and Mail:

"NAF and other organizations that support bringing the medical abortion drug to Canada say it will make ending a pregnancy more discreet and widely available, especially in areas where services are scarce."

But this drug could be dangerous where "services are scarce" and in "remote parts of Canada".

If you look below where I post the possible side effects of this drug, you'll also notice that you must be near an emergency department because of the potentially very serious side effects, some lethal. 

"Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination."

So living in remote areas is a pipe dream imagined by the pro-abortions. And Canada is a huge country, with lots of remote and rural areas.

And for about 7 in 100 women, the drug fails.

Health Canada should think twice before they approve this drug. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important side effects to consider

The side effects of mifepristone and misprostol are similar, but misoprostol is more likely than mifepristone to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headache. After taking these medicines, you may experience one or more of the common or very common side effects listed below, or you may not experience any of them:

• nausea
• vomiting
• diarrhoea
• dizziness
• abdominal cramps, pain or discomfort
• headache
• fatigue
• chills and fever (a temperature of 37.5°C or higher)
• fainting
• breast tenderness
• hot flushes, skin rashes or itching.

Talk to your health professional about possible side effects from these medicines before taking them.

If any of these side effects — or any other unexpected effects — concern you during the medical termination process, speak to your health professional.

Vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain and cramping are the expected effects of these medicines and, although unpleasant, they indicate that the termination is progressing as it should.

If you don’t experience vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramps and contractions of the uterus within 4 hours of taking misoprostol (the second medicine), this may indicate that the medical termination has failed. If this happens to you, visit a doctor urgently.

Signs of more-serious complications

If you experience a serious complication, you should be prepared and willing to access emergency medical help.

The following serious complications have been known to occur after termination of pregnancy with mifepristone/misprostol.

Persistent bleeding

Vaginal bleeding that is not heavy can continue for 10–16 days after a medical termination. If you continue to have bleeding after this, or if you are concerned about the amount or nature of bleeding at any time after having a medical termination, see your doctor.

If you experience heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 days after a medical termination, see a health professional immediately. Up to 4 in 1000 women will experience severe bleeding that requires a blood transfusion.

Infection

Infection of the organs or tissues in the pelvic region is an uncommon but serious complication that may occur in fewer than 1 in 100 women after a medical termination. If you have an infection, you may have some or all of the following symptoms:

• fever (37.5°C or higher)
• malaise (generally feeling unwell)
• lethargy
• nausea
• vomiting
• persistent abdominal pain or tenderness
• offensive-smelling vaginal discharge.

Failure of the procedure

There is a chance (about 7 in 100 women) that taking mifepristone/misoprostol will not result in a successful termination of pregnancy. About 2 in every 100 of these women will need further medicines prescribed by their doctor to complete the termination, and about 5 in every 100 women will need to have a surgical termination if the medical termination fails.

Continuing with a pregnancy if the medical termination has failed is strongly not advised because the developing embryo may have been harmed or deformed.

Unsuccessful termination can also lead to serious complications, so it’s important to get medical help urgently if you think this has happened. Ongoing bleeding, with or without signs of an infection, may suggest an unsuccessful termination. However, it's essential to have a follow-up visit with your doctor 14–21 days after the treatment — or sooner if requested by your doctor — even if you don’t have any signs of a complication.

Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination.
For a more-complete list of possible side effects, see the consumer medicine information (CMI)for Mifepristone Linepharma (mifepristone) and for GyMiso (misoprostol), available from your doctor, MS Health or through the NPS Medicine Finder.

If a side effect is described as very common, this means that in clinical trials at least 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

If a side effect is described as common, this means that in clinical trials, more than 1, but fewer than 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

A clinical trial is a research study conducted with patients that compares one treatment with one or more other treatments, to assess its effectiveness and safety.

Ask your health professional about the possible side effects of a medicine before you take it. Always tell your health professional about any changes to your condition.

Conscience, Mind Manipulation, and the 4th “R”

Response to the Globe and Mail’s Dec. 11 editorial: "Ontario MDs should not refuse contraception out of religious belief"

By Jean Maloney

I found something quite outstanding about this editorial.

While it is clear the editorialist does not support physicians’ freedom to practice medicine according to conscience, what especially stands out for me is the lack of any cogent argument in defense of that position.

Let me say right off, I will not attempt in this article to defend freedom of conscience (although I do support it.) Rather, I will explain how the G&M’s attempt to justify its position against freedom of conscience is flawed. It behooves all of us to assess with a critical mind arguments put forward to justify a particular position on any controversial issue and not be misled by what might sound reasonable, but in fact, is either untrue or unsubstantiated.

To start with, there is an underlying false premise in the opening line: “A physician who is predisposed by faith or belief to make negative moral judgments about a patient is a bad doctor.” However, one needs to read the second paragraph before being able to put that opening line into context and thereby recognize the false premise. In the second paragraph we read: “The need for a new policy became clear when an Ottawa woman was turned away from a walk-in clinic last February after she attempted to get a refill on her birth-control medication – a rejection letter from one of the clinic’s doctors cited his ethical and religious objections.”

The G&M editorialist is in essence saying that the Ottawa doctor’s refusal to prescribe the birth-control pill to the woman amounts to that doctor making a “negative moral judgment about a patient.”

And that is false.

Although it is possible the woman may have felt that a negative moral judgment was being made about her, in fact, the physician was making a moral judgment not about her but about himself. He believed, for reasons having to do with medical judgment, professional ethics, and religious belief, that it would be wrong for him to prescribe the birth control pill, and thus to do so would make him culpable in an immoral act.

No one can get into the mind and heart of another person, and so no one is capable of judging the moral culpability of someone else, even if one might believe the action itself to be immoral. It would be up to the woman who wanted the pill to do her own conscientious reflection and morally judge herself. No one else can do it for her.

The G&M goes on to say “We turn to physicians to resolve our most intimate problems with wisdom and compassion and fairness, not to be rejected because we don't fit a sacred model.” But physicians who allow their moral/ethical code to inform their practice believe they are treating patients with “wisdom and compassion and fairness.” So it is clear that the G&M editorialist is using the words “wisdom” “compassion” and “fairness” to mean something entirely different than what conscientious physicians would mean by those terms. Yet without explaining what is meant by those three terms and showing how the physicians fall short of embodying the three qualities those terms express, the statement means nothing. And so it cannot advance the G&M’s argument (i.e. it carries no weight in defending the G&M’s position that physicians should simply give a patient the treatment they request, regardless of any objections the physician might have to that treatment).

Likewise with this statement: “But the College has refused to come down harshly on doctors who let their religious views get in the way of their duty to provide care.” The G&M has given no evidence that “religious views get in the way of [the Ottawa physicians’] duty to provide care.” The Ottawa physicians believe that prescribing the birth control pill is not a helpful form of care (why that is so is beyond the scope of this article). These physicians provide Natural Family Planning (NFP). That is the form of care they believe best comports with good medicine and respect for the dignity of their patients. And no doubt the Ottawa physician would have provided that care if the woman had requested it. Yet the G&M has given nothing to back up its claim that prescribing the birth control pill is good medical care, or why the alternative that the physicians do provide – NFP – is unacceptable medical care, or how the physician’s religious views got in the way.

Two more unsubstantiated claims that the editorialist makes are that conscientious physicians “confuse a religious judgment with a medical decision” and “substitute personal belief for science.” First of all, what does the editorialist mean by “religious judgment” and how is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill an example of it? The editorialist doesn’t say. How is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill not a medical decision? The editorialist doesn’t say. And how is prescribing the pill scientific but not prescribing it is not? Again, the editorialist doesn’t say.

Claim after claim made by the G&M editorialist is either untrue or unsubstantiated. If there is an argument to be made for forcing physicians to prescribe the birth control pill, the G&M hasn’t made it.

We arrive finally at what is so disturbing about this G&M editorial. It is not always easy to spot the lack of logically coherent arguments in opinion pieces. The reader may fail to recognize that a claim has not been backed up with evidence and may confuse opinion with fact. In the absence of sound reasoning, the reader may be swayed simply by emotionally evocative words and themes, for example, “wisdom and compassion and fairness,” “religious judgment,” “sinner,” “rejection,” “duty to provide care,” “dignity,” “personal belief vs science,” and so on.

This is disturbing. One would hope newspaper editorialists would feel duty bound, by their own professional code of ethics, to give a thoughtful reasoned argument in defence of their position, especially when something as fundamental as freedom of conscience is at stake, and when there is the potential for a whole class of citizens to be excluded from the medical profession if the draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is adopted.

Instead, the G&M editorialist has chosen to make misleading and unsubstantiated claims using language that can manipulate readers into bypassing their own logical thought processes.

The important lesson here for anyone who wants to protect their minds from being manipulated into accepting potentially dangerous ideas, is this: learn to think critically. Learn to spot logical fallacies / errors in reasoning. There are courses and books and articles, in print and online, on Critical Thinking /Argument /Logical Reasoning. Why such courses aren’t compulsory in school, is a mystery to me.

Along with the existing 3 “R’s” – Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic – we ought to add a 4^th “R” to the core curriculum in our schools: Reasoning.

Equipped with the basic tools of logic, we will be better able to withstand the attempts by others, especially those in positions of power, to confuse and mislead us.

Globe and Mail - your bias is showing

I just read this by ELIZABETH RENZETTI about the closing of the Morgentaler clinc in New Brunswick

Abortion in New Brunswick: The vise tightens, and activists push back

"With a provincial election looming in September, New Brunswick Liberal Leader Brian Gallant has promised a “review” of the province’s abortion policy if his party wins, but that is hardly a ringing call to equal access for all, or a promise to get rid of Regulation 84-20, which prevents women in the province having the same rights as women across the country. 

The fight for reproductive freedom in New Brunswick has been long and bitter, even before then-premier Frank McKenna laid down his challenge: “If Mr. Morgentaler tries to open a clinic in the province of New Brunswick, he’s going to get the fight of his life.” Now, 25 years later, Dr. Morgentaler is gone and the clinic that bears his name is on the verge of disappearing, too. That is, unless some generous people across the country decide that this is a fight worth digging deep for, in the understanding that when some of us lose our rights, we all do."

"reproductive freedom" , "lose our rights", "equal access for all", "prevents women in the province having the same rights as women across the country."

It's all there. The "pro-choice" manifesto key-words for beginners.

So then I went to the three links on the same page under the title:

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

• KONRAD YAKABUSKI Does a doctor’s religion trump your prescription?
• GLOBE EDITORIAL Don’t try to separate abortion from maternal health
• GOLDENBERG Trudeau’s pro-choice decree is democratic, not dictatorial

More "pro-choice" dogma, all of them.

So I went searching on the Globe's site for maybe, you know, a pro-life viewpoint? Nope. There is none. Two more "pro-choice" pieces:

Outside big cities, abortion services still hard to find

Canada must do more to prevent unsafe abortions (by Niki Ashton and HÉLÈNE LAVERDIÈRE)

"Access to safe abortion doesn’t just save lives. The evidence is irrefutable – women and girls who have access to the full range of family planning services are healthier, better educated and contribute more to their national economies and societies. Canada needs to lead with a comprehensive approach to gender equality that is evidence-based and centered on empowering women and girls. 

For New Democrats, access to safe abortion is a human right. We know that family planning and reproductive choice play a crucial role in the well-being of women. Women who have access to the full range of family planning options are empowered to make better decisions about caring for their family. It also gives women an opportunity to realize their full potential by allowing them to fully participate in their economies and communities."

Now I did find this by Margaret Wente, which was at least somewhat balanced:
Spare me the abortion absolutism

Then I found this video:
Is ‘Emily’s Abortion Video’ an accurate depiction of what it’s like to have an abortion?

It broke my heart. Emily says:

"I don't feel like a bad person. I don't feel guilty. I feel in awe that I can make a baby, That I can make a life. I knew that what I was going to was right. It was right for me and no-one else."

All I could think about when watching the video, was that a very young child just lost her life. While the cameras were rolling. All in the name of a women's rights. They don't talk about that at the Globe and Mail.

National Post not afraid to talk about abortion

Hey Globe and Mail. Get a load of what Paul Russell is saying in yesterday's National Post.

Maybe you could learn something about what your readers want to talk about. Or not. Your choice.

Globe and Mail - your bias is showing

We all know where the Globe and Mail's bias lies concerning abortion. And it isn't pro-life.

This article: How abortion protests are coming to Toronto's high school steps criticizes CCBR's bloody abortion displays outside Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute. I expected no less.

Here are a few "choice" sentiments in case anyone didn't catch it:
“There’s nothing we can do; they stand off school property,” said spokeswoman Shari Schwartz-Maltz. “If members of the community take exception to what they’re saying or their tactics, they are absolutely encouraged to phone the police.”

"Some Toronto parents are fuming, not only at the presence of the pro-life group but also because the TDSB hasn’t informed them of the group making the rounds outside secondary schools. “They send us a letter home if some kid has lice. They send us a letter home if there’s been a shooting. Why hasn’t anything been sent home saying ‘Just in case you’re not aware, there is a pro-life group that has been picketing various high schools, and we’ve told kids not to engage’?”

"Others, mainly boys, were infuriated by the presence of a pro-life group. As the discussion heated up, school administrators pull them away."

"Arthur Morris was so angry, he was shaking. “I don’t have a problem with them protesting. Freedom of speech, I’m all for that. But I have a problem with this, these images, right outside of school,” said the 16-year-old. “Don’t force your religion, and it’s largely a religious thing, don’t force your religion onto others.”

(Why do pro-choice people always fall back to religion as a motivation for being pro-life? Notice how they never explain the connection between the two. And who is "forcing" religion on anybody? We aren't even talking about religion.)

“I think it’s ridiculous,” said Hayden McKinnon, 18. He added: “They’re at a high school. They’re showing pictures of dead fetuses right on the corner... I think all women should have a choice.”

(How ironic. The purposes of the pictures is to graphically depict that "choice", Hayden. Don't you get it?)

"Kerry Bowman, a professor of bioethics at the University of Toronto, worries that vulnerable students are being targeted by a group that is not providing information, but rather using manipulative language and advertising techniques to recruit."

(If dead bloody fetuses are not information in the truest sense of the word, then what are they?)

“When you combine the manipulative techniques with a population that is still forming their values and beliefs, I see an ethical red flag going up,” Prof. Bowman said. “You’re really playing to win. It’s not a just a question of informing people about this issue; it’s much more manipulative.”

(How is speaking the truth, manipulative? And ethical red flag? Uh, isn't abortion an ethical issue? One could argue that not showing dead bloody fetuses to someone considering an abortion, would be an ethical red flag, Professor.)

"Ms. Christopoulos said schools have a responsibility, however, to inform the community. Her 16-year-old daughter did not think much of the group showing up at her high school. Ms. Christopoulos was furious that her daughter and her friends were being targeted."

“I think it’s inappropriate. If you want to make a point, then I think you should be approaching people who are in a position to be making those kind of decisions,” she said. “I don’t think my 16-year-old daughter is.”

(Teenagers certainly make the decision to have abortions; therefore they are quite capable of seeing what the abortion "choice" looks like.)

Notice how the Globe didn't interview one person who agrees with showing the signs, and maybe even had their heart changed while viewing those pictures or talking with the CCBR folks. Interesting don't you think?

Are lobsters more important than babies?

The Globe and Mail is worried about lobsters feeling pain when it's cooking. Oh brother.

What about babies feeling pain when they are aborted. Is the G&M worried about that?

Prof. Elwood says that:
“The advantage of pain is that it trains your attention to what caused it so you can learn and change your behaviour in the future."

The pain a child feels as it is being ripped from it's mother's body never gets the chance to change its behaviour, since the baby is soon, you know, dead.

“It shows clearly that the animals are learning, they’re discriminating between a safe area and an area that isn’t, It’s a criterion that has been tested and been found to be consistent with pain.”

The child never gets the chance to learn to find any "safe area", since none exists during an abortion. Lucky animals.

"While mammals are given some measure of consideration when they are slaughtered, it is common for crustaceans to have their bodies ripped while alive, Prof. Elwood noted.

But not the baby mammal of the human species, not a whole whack of "consideration" there. Not while they are being "slaughtered" and having "their bodies ripped apart".

“An unmentionably large number are abused in extreme ways and perhaps through this experiment there might be some changes in attitudes and practices.”

Wow. Do we as a species, actually care more about a lobster being boiled, than a about a baby being dismembered, disemboweled and decapitated? Now that is "abuse in extreme ways".

And changes in "attitudes and practices"? Bring it on I say. Save the baby. Boil the lobster.

Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue?

Claire Hoy wrote a great piece in the National Affairs: It’s all politics, pure and simple about Ontario's hiding of all abortion statistics.

He wonders why we haven't heard from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star on this story that one would think would have all the news media crawling all over it.

The National Post has covered this story here and here, but nary a word from the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.

You know what I mean G&M and TS don't you? A really good news story, I'm sure you've heard of them. It's a story that people care about, that's topical, that has neat stuff in it like issues, like you know, like democracy and secrecy and intrigue and accountability (or lack thereof)? Stuff like that.

As Hoy points out:
"And speaking of newspaper coverage, as far as I can tell, both the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, both editorially very proabortion, haven’t even bothered to report this story – odd, given the reams of coverage they gave last year when Stephen Harper announced an end to the long-form census. They treated this cutback on statistics as a national tragedy. But abortion statistics, hey, who cares? All of which goes to show that politicians have no monopoly on hypocrisy".

Indeed.

A really important news story

You’d think the Globe and Mail would have more important things to write about than "wooly wombs." Like maybe the democracy crisis looming in Ontario with the government’s decision to perform all abortions in secret and the hiding of all abortion statistics.

But no. The Globe hasn’t covered that story yet. I guess they aren't interested in those kinds of news stories.

Instead they prefer to haul out that tired old outdated hobby horse about how some women won’t tolerate "any changes to women’s reproductive rights."

And how some of said women want to bring attention to that so-called, really boring actually, tired, should-be-put-down-hobby-horse, straight out of make believe land, you guessed it, the "right of a woman to have control over her own body."

Yawn. Is there something on the other channel?

But what these women really mean, but just can’t bring themselves to say because it is oh, so politically incorrect--is that what they really want is to have the right to have control over somebody’s else's body.

You see, in MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion M-312, Mr. Woodworth wants to have a discussion to study "Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being".

Sounds like a conversation worth having if you ask me even though I’m quite sure they won’t ask me but you get my drift.

So these wild west wooly womb knitters (try to say that with a mouthful of potatoes) don’t want to let Canadians have that discussion. Why? Well because...because...because they don’t want to discuss it. That’s all. Just because. Trust me.

Instead of giving us some really good arguments why we shouldn’t have this discussion in a democracy like Canada where we are used to having debates on most topics, present topic excluded, they knit wooly wombs.

And get this. They are going to send them to Parliament. Yes they are. I kid you not. That will change the course of history. No need for a good argument when a wooly womb will do.

I need to go now. I need to take a nap.

Canada's no abortion debate

My mother used to tell me when I was young, that I should always give credit where credit was due.

Today's thank you goes to the National Post and Charles Lewis who placed a story about the lack of any Canadian abortion debate on the front page of a national newspaper, albeit below the fold.

Pro-lifers have a tough task being heard in an increasingly pro-abortion world where the killing of unborn children has become so normalized, and even celebrated, that it is difficult to get any air time at all if you dare speak out for the unborn, who by the way, are not part of a woman's body. I never did understand that argument.

We all know that the pro-abortion lobby in this country, holds a score of 10, while pro-life people continue to hold the longest running zero score ever held in a first world country when it comes to abortion restrictions-debate-media-coverage-you-name-it-abortion progress, or lack thereof.

I also want to say something on the subject about how that other national newspaper deals with abortion, but my mother also told me if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. I'll shut up now Mom.

Good bye Globe and Mail

Dear Mr. Stackhouse,
It is time that we and the Globe and Mail parted ways.

My husband and I have subscribed to your newspaper for many many years. Our current subscription expired on June 4, 2010 and we will not be renewing it.

The Globe and Mail has regressed steadily to the left over time and basically there is little left that we care to read anymore. My husband still enjoys Neil Reynolds, Christie Blatchford and John Ibbitson but has completely stopped reading your editorials, Jeffrey Simpson and Lawrence Martin. For me, I have grown weary of your anti-pro-life bias and in fact your general anti-religious bias.

Pro-life articles or letters to the editor are rarely published by the Globe. In fact I'm not sure I have ever seen a pro-life article in your newspaper. Recently when Lysiane Gagnon and Margaret Wente both wrote pro-abortion articles, there were no letters published that refuted what they said. Did you not receive any? I understand that not all letters can be published but surely a newspaper as reputable and as old as the Globe and Mail could at the very least have the journalistic integrity to print alternate view points some of the time.

We now subscribe to the National Post which is not only more in line with our points of view, but it does have the courage and journalistic integrity to publish letters on both sides of any topic including abortion and religion.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney