What would the Martians think? (Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth)

Vicki Saporta, President and CEO, National Abortion Federation (NAF) provided the opening remarks to the celebration of the 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today.

Ms. Saporta stated: "This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years."

To say that the lives of countless women have been saved because of abortion is not quite true. Less than 5% of all abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal and maternal problems. That means that 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control, not to save women's lives.

It is the lives of the unborn killed by abortion that women like Ms. Saporta never talk about. About 100,000 each year in Canada. Even if Ms. Saporta is referring to the lives of women who died before abortion was legal, those numbers (44 in the five years before 1969) doesn't come close to the 100,000 annual killing of fetuses.

Then Ms. Saporta says
"In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement."

Abortion is excluded because as stated above at least 95% of them are not medically necessary. Abortion advocates will always say that abortions are medically necessary. I say, prove it.

Next she says:
"The Canadian Medical Association’s policy of allowing physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortion care is a clear violation of CMA’s own Code of Ethics, which requires physicians to:
• Consider the well-being of the patient;
• Practice medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity; and
• Provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions
about their medical care.
The CMA’s policy treats women unfairly and impedes women’s access to care."

Jeff Blackmer of the CMA states:
"CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician."

Insisting that doctors be allowed to follow their conscience is a fundamental right for doctors. I would never want be advised by my doctor on any matter, knowing that he had parked his conscience at the door that morning.

What is disturbing about Ms. Saporta's comments, and others like her, is that they say things "like abortion is medically necessary" by simply slipping them into the conversation as if it were true. Then they repeat them over and over and eventually people just start believing they are true.

Take Dr. Bernard Nathanson for example. He was responsible for over 75,000 abortions before he finally had a change of heart. He said that slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies." were made up. That they fabricated the results of fictional polls to simply show what they wanted us to believe.

I suggest you google Dr. Nathanson's name. You won't see his name come up on any pro-choice websites. I don't imagine the abortion advocates were too happy when he started telling the truth.

I think at this point, our Martian friend at the back of the room must be really confused. "You mean the truth isn't always the truth?"

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

A challenge to the media in Canada

Joseph Ben-Ami makes one of the most cohesive arguments as of late In defense of Canada’s “No Abortion Policy” in foreign aid

"If polling tells us anything about Canadians' attitude to abortion, it’s that they are overwhelmingly troubled by it, but deeply divided over what to do. In view of this lack of consensus, a case can be made that the government’s decision is entirely consistent with the feelings of Canadians on the subject, especially since that decision does not prevent individuals from supporting an international pro-abortion agenda if they so choose....like Planned Parenthood are perfectly able to raise money on their own and spend it as they please, without government interference. The fact that they don't - or can't - raise private money despite in many cases having charitable status, is a strong indication of how little Canadians actually support their agenda. This is an important aspect of the overall story, yet a search of the record could not find a single report that includes it. Not one."

If our media could put their own possible biases on the back burner for one day, I have a challenge for them. Why not come out this year and witness thousands of peaceful, respectful people, of all stripes, colour and age, who march every year in the annual March for Life this Thursday May 13?

Last year there was virtually no media coverage and there were at least 12,000 soaking wet marchers.

This would provide a single glaring, not to be misunderstood snapshot of our lack of consensus on the legal accident that created fully-funded, any-time, any-reason, no-reason abortion in this country.

What would the Martians think? (Part 1...Women's "Rights")

I just completed reading 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. This was a feminist symposium in 2008 to celebrate (their word) the twenty year anniversary of the Morgentaler court case; the case that opened the flood gates for fully funded nationally available abortion that gave women their "right" to abortion on demand.

(As I've stated elsewhere, the ruling never actually granted a Charter right to abortion but abortion advocates like to pretend it did. They believe that if they say something long enough and often enough, people will think it’s true.)

After I read the document I was left with a feeling of immense sadness.

This phenomenal increase in women’s rights was accomplished by a corresponding elimination of all rights to the unborn child.

The word "Rights" is used 75 times in the document: it talks about Charter rights, Sexual rights, Reproductive rights, Equality rights, Human rights, Abortion rights, Women's rights, Fundamental rights and Our rights--all as they relate to women.

The only nod to father’s rights was preceded by a "so-called" as in "so-called fathers rights", the common derogatory term we use when we want to belittle or make fun of something.

Any mention of the unborn or fetal rights was again always in the negative sense as in:
"if we acknowledge the current ascendant discourse is one of the unborn child, then we as feminists and supporters of choice for women must re-insert the women in the social vernacular, and start again from the premise that the pregnant woman and the unborn child speak with one voice, and that voice is hers."

It's always about the woman.

I imagined a Martian sitting at the back of the room watching the proceedings and listening to the speeches as one half of this foreign human species--the half that is the carrier of the offspring of the species--celebrated their rights to be allowed to kill the newest members of their own species.

(to be continued...)

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

The truth is a funny thing

Jen Skerritt in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on Women who had abortions report more depression, drug abuse: Study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychology

Pro-lifers have been talking about the psychological effects of abortion for years.

But Natalie Mota, a University of Manitoba graduate student who was the study's primary author says:
"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness. There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."

Reminds me of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link which pro-abortion advocates also completely discounted until the main stream media started reporting on it.

Looks like the truth is leaking out. It can only contain itself for so long.

Human rights on front page at the National Post

Thanks to the National Post for publishing the article yesterday, Abortion: The debate politicians are afraid to reopen. In a pro-choice country where abortion debate is not tolerated, where the pro-abortion advocates and media are shrill and strident, where our most defenceless citizens have no protection and are eliminated like so much unwanted garbage, and where if someone were tallying the score it would be abortion 100, unborn children 0, I commend the National Post for publishing this article.