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:

"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.

Nothing to be proud of

Canada is one of the best places in the world to live.

It has high regard for human rights. Unless you are a preborn citizen.

Canada shares its lack of legal protection for its preborn with North Korea and China.

How in heaven's name did we get here? Only God knows.

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.

Defending the most vulnerable

In this article written by Jeff Turnbull, past president of the Canadian Medical Association, Canada defends the most vulnerable, Dr. Turnbull talks about the plight of the homeless in Canada. Good and honourable and I agree with Dr. Turnbull.

I wonder if Dr. Turnbull considers preborn citizens as being part of Canada's most vulnerable? Because the parallel is striking.

Dr. Turnbull says about the homeless: “The poor pay for their poverty with their health.” The preborn pay for their inconvenience with their life.

He says that “...our most vulnerable citizens experience health outcomes that are often worse than those where I have worked in the developing world. I don’t believe this is the legacy my generation wants to leave for our children.”

In Canada, our most vulnerable preborn citizens experience health outcomes that include being ripped apart in their mother’s wombs, an outcome worse than those in the developing world and the first world.

Then Dr. Turnbull says this, “Rather, we must stand up and be remembered for how we as a society...embraced the vulnerable, the disabled and the mentally ill as our own...and for how we insisted that health and justice be meted out fairly, independent of income and postal code.”

I say, as a society we will be remembered for ignoring the continued and unabated destruction of our vulnerable preborn children, some of whom were aborted because they were disabled, or simply unexpected. There is neither health nor justice for aborted persons.

Dr. Turnbull says, “I reject the argument that economic prosperity is the sole prerequisite for strong social programs. The immense economic growth that Canada has enjoyed over the years has not been translated to the most disadvantaged around us, nor equally distributed throughout the country. Yet a more equitable society is more secure, more united and economically stronger. Compassion, equity and fairness not only make for good social policy, but are a long-term fiscal imperative.”

Well I reject the argument that women’s rights be the sole prerequisite for the social program that is fully funded legal abortion during all nine months of pregnancy. Canada’s economic growth has translated into more tax dollars than ever before paying for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable being aborted. A more equitable society would be more secure, more united and economically stronger when all its citizens are finally granted the right to life. Compassion, equity and fairness to the preborn not only makes for good social policy, but also good fiscal policy with an increased workforce of some 100,000 each year.

Dr. Turnbull tells us that, “Simply put, the poor pay for their poverty with their health.”

I counter with, the preborn pay for “choice” with their life.

Dr. Turnbull feels that “Fundamental change can only take place when individuals and organizations representing large sectors of our society set out expectations for our elected officials and hold them accountable for meeting them.”

I would like to see fundamental change for preborn citizens. And it can only take place when individuals and organizations speak out for them to our elected officials and hold them accountable for finally granting them legal protection.

Dr. Turnbull talks about leaving a legacy. “As I reflect on the legacy that we will leave to future generations, I realize that my good fortune is a product of the vision and sacrifice of those who came before. It was their legacy to us. I can only hope that we, as the current custodians of our collective identity, have the vision, courage and leadership to make those who will follow us proud of our enduring legacy to them.”

As I reflect on the legacy I would like to leave to future generations, I realize that my good fortune is a product of the fact that I was born at all and that I am actually able to write these words today. I can only hope that we, as the custodians of all children, have the vision, courage and leadership to allow these children yet to be born, to be allowed any legacy at all.

I don't know where Dr. Turnbull stands on the topic of abortion. But all of our vulnerable citizens, those born and those not yet born, are equally worthy of our protection, care and compassion.

Banning third trimester abortions

Mary Ellen Douglas from Campaign Life Coalition comments on the latest Ipsos Reid/Postmedia poll, which states that some 60% of Canadians would support an abortion law that would ban third trimester abortions.

Ms. Douglas states:
"For some to suggest that they would only like to see babies in the womb protected in the third trimester is to suggest that we should establish a pro-abortion law in the absence of any law which would allow the killing of unborn babies from the time of conception until 26 weeks."

CLC does a lot of good work, like the Annual March for Life every year, an event I strongly support. But I must respectfully disagree with Ms. Douglas on this subject.

We would not be establishing a pro-abortion law, because we already have a pro-abortion law in Canada, one of the most extreme pro-abortion laws in the world, where not one preborn child is legally protected.

Protecting preborn children after 24 or 26 weeks does not "allow" the killing of unborn babies before that time. We already allow their killing before that time, as well as after that time. A gestational law would simply put some restrictions on our existing legal abortion situation where children in all three trimesters are currently unprotected.

Ms. Douglas goes on to say that:
"Pro-life groups in countries that take a time limit approach note from experience that it is very difficult to uphold the law because unscrupulous doctors and abortion-minded women can fudge the conception date and how far the pregnancy has proceeded."

Yes people lie, it happens all the time and we can't stop people from doing so. But that isn't a reason for not engaging in the art of what is doable. As we have learned from this most recent poll, getting a broad consensus on preventing third trimester abortions in Canada is possible. Whether or not someone will lie about the gestational age of the fetus is something we cannot control, in this situation, just like we can`t control it in any situation.

At CCBR's recent presentations in Ottawa at the culmination of the New Abortion Caravan, there was a short video clip of a doctor examining a 24 week old dead fetus. I can’t get that picture out of my head.

The doctor turned this fully formed baby over a couple of times, probably examining her to ensure that all of her body parts had been removed from her mother's womb after the abortion. He then enfolded this tiny human being in a white sheet, presumably to “dispose” of her remains.

That picture will haunt me for a long time.

I would do anything to protect that tiny child. I would also like to protect all the other tiny preborn children from such a fate. But at the moment, our legal situation in Canada is that none of them are protected. With a third trimester protection law, at least some of these tiny lives would be saved because many "pro-choice" people would agree with me that, that 24 week old fetus should be protected.

Ms. Douglas ends with this:
"The pro-life movement wants to protect all human life from the time of conception to natural death. A gestational limit would give the illusion of providing some protection to a tiny number of children in the womb and send the wrong signal to the general public that abortion is restricted in any meaningful sense."

Yes the pro-life movement wants to protect life from the time of conception to natural death. And we will continue to fight for that protection. But I posit, that not advocating for what is possible [by creating third trimester legal restrictions], gives the illusion that pro-life people will only ever accept, what may never happen.

Does SOGC speak for you?

The recent publicly stated position of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) against Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 is very troubling. For a couple of reasons.

First, in their statement SOGC says that Mr. Woodworth's motion is:
"yet another attempt to circumvent the direct decision taken by Parliament and the Courts to define legal status and rights as accruing at birth."

No such decision has ever been taken by Parliament regarding the legal status of a human being at birth. In fact, what the Supreme Court actually did rule, was that Parliament is precisely where a conversation regarding unborn children should take place. It never has.

All topics should be open for debate in a democracy. When we allow any discussion to be silenced, democracy ceases.

Second, SOGC states that a woman's:
"interests, needs, or choices would be considered in treatment decisions, but these would be subject to the rights of the foetus she is carrying. The foetus’ unexpressed wishes would be interpreted by proxy by courts and legislators."

The "foetus’ unexpressed wishes" is exactly why Mr. Woodworth's motion is so important. He is trying to change the current situation whereby the most vulnerable of human beings in Canada—voiceless children in the womb—are not recognized by our legal system. A just society demands that we protect and defend the vulnerable and be a voice for the voiceless.

M-312 gives us an opportunity to simply begin a national conversation about how we can best protect and defend vulnerable preborn children’s “unexpressed wishes.”

Third, this is our medical profession speaking. The very people who we entrust our health and our lives to. They are also the people who we entrust the lives of our preborn children to. Why do these doctors not advocate for the other patient in each and every pregnancy? That thought frightens me.

Fourth, the SOGC says:
"This motion opens the door for the further restriction of women’s reproductive and sexual rights and decision-making."

Since there are no legal restrictions on our any-time-any-reason-no-reason-publicly-funded abortions in Canada, this statement is disingenuous.

How can we further restrict something that has absolutely no restrictions? Further restrictions implies that legal restrictions already exist. They do not.

Finally, does this position statement really reflect the views of all members of the SOGC? If it does not, I hope that we will hear from those doctors who do support Mr. Woodworth's motion.

Even better, I hope these doctors write to their society and insist they start speaking for both patients: mother and child. And I hope these doctors will tell their society that their "Position" does not represent their own.

Notes:
1. I had actually believed that doctors took the Hippocratic Oath, which says "First do no Harm". I have discovered that in most cases doctors do not take this oath. But one doctor, Dr. John Patrick has started the Hippocratic Registry for doctors who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath and who would like to honour this oath:
And more information on the Hippocratic Oath here.