Canada performs abortions on Americans and other nationals

I received an ATIP to Immigration and citizenship, done by someone else after the overturning of Roe VS Wade:

Please send me your briefing notes, correspondence and reports on the recent American abortion court rulings and new laws, since May 1, 2022, and its impacts upon Canada - e.g., Americans travelling here for abortions, the new burden on our medical system, changes to the Canada Health Act. [Background - Regarding abortion rights, on June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe vs Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. On May 2, 2022, Politico released a leaked first draft of this majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. ] The decision means women living in states with new restrictions on abortion could be forced to travel to Canada to obtain the procedure. Travel to Canada also requires a passport and a vaccine card. Abortion coalitions are calling on Canadian governments to give clinics more funding, saying even a small number of Americans can overwhelm our system. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hinted Canada could be a destination. Statistics from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada show a fairly steady increase in the number of people from the U.S. who were granted permanent residence in Canada each year since 2015 (when Donald Trump was soon to be elected). So far, 2022 is shaping up to be another banner year: 3,235 applications were approved in the first quarter, the highest total for that three-month period in the past eight years. ]

So Canada will perform abortions on Americans who come here. And if women come to Canada in a "refugee-like situation or in a situation where humanitarian considerations apply", Canada will also pay for their abortions. The money comes from another one of Justin Trudeau's endless money trees, planted somewhere in LaLa land. This one is from the $740 million Federal Health Program.

Not too sure what is humanitarian about killing a foreign national's pre-born child. Certainly not very humanitarian for that baby.

Canada election 2019

Get your election door hanger from We Need a Law.

Justin Trudeau - his priorities are all messed up

Justin Trudeau says we aren't at war with ISIS.

"The Liberal government says Canada is not at war with Islamic militants -- a view not shared by ally France. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion are rejecting the "at war" label just one day after the bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured 270. 

After the attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Europe was "at war."

The bombings in Brussels came four months after the attacks in Paris that left 130 dead. The militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has claimed responsibility for both incidents. Trudeau, who made his comments during a CBC Radio interview, and Dion -- speaking in the House of Commons foyer today -- both say the conflict with ISIS does not fit the true definition of war."

So Instead of fighting ISIS (like we should be doing) we instead want to abort babies around the world.

What does this tell us? It tells us that Canada is at war with babies. You see ISIS can defend itself. Pre-born babies can't. They are defenseless. So they are much easier to kill. Oh, and Trudeau thinks being a feminist is such a great old thing. Feminists also have no problem killing pre-born babies. 

ISIS might fight back but babies can't. I think Justin Trudeau is afraid of ISIS but Justin Trudeau is not afraid of pre-born babies. Pre-born babies can easily be killed without retaliating in any way. Not so with ISIS.

Canada is back? No Justin Trudeau, Canada is just all messed up now that you are Prime Minister.

I am embarrassed for Justin Trudeau. I am embarrassed for Canada.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who can be against justice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

When pro-abortions get cranky

Anyone who reads the National Post, knows that every Saturday the Letters Editor Paul Russell, writes his own column highlighting:
"Some of the more passionately argued letters received that did not make it into the paper".

This week the theme was: "With contentious issues, the right word is crucial."

This is what Mr. Russell had to say about an apparently contentious word (at least for some), used in a column the previous week in the National Post, that caught the ire of a "pro-choice" doctor. The word is "pre-born child".
"Word choice is important when talking about the subject of abortion. Last Saturday, we ran a column by Scott Barber, in which he talked about “how the terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ … have been responsible for confusing the public, sparking political battles and stifling discussion.”

This column provoked many responses, including one from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson. Her letter stated: “Mr. Barber [has fallen] into another semantic trap promulgated by anti-abortionists. Referring to a fetus in utero as a ‘pre-born child’ is a [linguistic] anti-abortion device designed to instill guilt in a woman contemplating an abortion.”

“It is ironic [that] Dr. Robinson should be critical of the language used to describe the abortion debate,” shot back William T. Weiland. “She assumes that abortion is the norm; otherwise, why use the term ‘anti-abortion’? Dr. Robinson feels it is inappropriate to attach guilt to a woman contemplating abortion. In today’s society, where abortion is widely accepted, it is ludicrous to suggest that such language would instill guilt. The source of the guilt for women who have chosen to abort a child is the abortion itself.”

“One can easily see how desperate and unnerved the anti-life side is becoming when Dr. Robinson has to resort to spin and semantics,” added Cliff Pyle. “If she cannot accept the term, ‘a pre-born child,’ she should drop the term ‘doctor’ from her name and resort to comedy. Her comment that referring to ‘a pre-born child instills guilt’ will do nothing for those who do suffer tremendous guilt after an abortion.”

Well that sews it up for me. Pre-born child. Pre-born child. Pre-born child.