Friday, September 19, 2014

Abortions can bring harmful effects

Letter to the Editor Telegraph Journal (published) Sept. 15, 2014

The recent ad exposing the harmful effects from abortion, dispels any myths that abortion is good for women’s health.

One of these common myths perpetrated by abortion advocates, is that complication rates from abortion is less than one per cent. The ad places that number more likely at three to 11 per cent. My own research based on a study done by Echo (a self proclaimed pro-choice organization funded by the Ontario government in 2011) corroborates this, with complication rates between 6.95 per cent and 8.05 per cent.

To argue in favour of abortion using women’s health as the reason, is in and of itself, harmful to women.

Patricia Maloney

Justin Trudeau--a bad time to be a pre-born baby

The National Post editorial board--along with some former Liberal MPs--want Justin Trudeau to admit he made a mistake with his thou-shalt-be-pro-choice commandment.

Here is the full letter:
Dear Mr. Trudeau; 
We, the undersigned, former Liberal Members of Parliament, are concerned about your recent pronouncement that people who hold a particular view on a given moral issue, as a matter of conscience, cannot be Liberal candidates for the position of M.P. unless they agree to park their consciences at the entrance to the House of Commons and vote directly opposite to their fundamental beliefs, as directed by you. We believe your undemocratic position will alienate many voters who have, in the past, voted Liberal. We ask that you rescind your decision, for at least the following reasons. 
First, the firm position of all previous Liberal Leaders, including Pierre E. Trudeau, has been that, on moral issues, Liberal Members of Parliament were able to vote according to their respective consciences. This clear and consistent position served the Party well, as witnessed by the number of years the Liberal Party was the Government in the 20th century. For you to fully reverse this wise, long held position of all your predecessors, without any cogent reason, legal or otherwise, has the potential to alienate many former Liberal voters. 
Second, since your edict singles out the issue of being opposed to abortion, but only that issue, it clearly discriminates against a select class of people, namely those who oppose abortion, and no one else, such as those who might oppose, or be in favour of, say, assisted suicide. We believe that such discrimination is a clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 (a) which guarantees everyone, even Liberal Members of Parliament, “freedom of conscience“, and (b), which guarantees everyone, even Liberal Members of Parliament, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”. 
Third, your pronouncement deprives the members of local Liberal Riding Associations from nominating for election, anyone who is pro-life, and, by logical extension, anyone who has firm personal beliefs on any issue that differs from Party policy as imposed by you. This clearly negates your promise that Liberal nominations will be fair, open and democratic. 
Finally, if your order is not rescinded, it will stand as a precedent for you, and future Liberal Leaders, to issue similar edicts on other moral issues, such as being either for or against assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, animal/human genetic splicing/mixing and many such issues which we cannot even imagine today, but which may develop as our technological knowledge increases at an ever more rapid pace. After all, if the Leader can ban people from running for the Party because they are opposed to abortion, then why not because they advocate euthanasia, or agree with human cloning, or are opposed to either or both these concepts? Where does one draw the line? 
As Liberal leader, we urge you to return to democratic principles and sensible Party tradition and rescind your ban on people who hold a particular moral belief, from running for the Party, unless they agree to do exactly as demanded by you. How can such a discriminatory policy serve the democratic ideals of our great nation? 
Sincerely,
Garnet Bloomfield
London-Middlesex (1980-1984)
Murray Calder
Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey (1993-2004)
Rex Crawford
Kent (1988-1997)
Pat O’Brien
London-Fanshawe (1993-2006)
John O’Reilly
Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock (1993-2004)
Janko Peric
Cambridge (1993-2004)
Tom Wappel
Scarborough Southwest (1988-2008)
How does Trudeau respond? With this tweet below.
Trudeau really doesn't get it does he? And worse, he doesn't get that he doesn't get it.
The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. defends rights.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

A letter to Justin - Can we talk?

Dear Justin,

I just read thisI think we need to talk.

You say that:
“I have had a lot of Liberals come up to me and say, 'I don’t quite understand, isn’t the Liberal party about freedom and about defending people’s rights?'"

“Absolutely it is. And the rights that women have fought for over decades to be in control of their own bodies and to control their own reproductive health is not a right I’m going to brush aside to defend the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote a particular way for an MP."

“If they vote in favour of restricting women's access to abortion, that’s taking away their rights. And that is something that we will not accept in the Liberal party. We are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that’s a serious, serious position that Liberals have to defend.

"It’s time the Liberal party actually defended rights,”
Now Justin, I'm pretty sure you're a fair to midland, smart kind of guy. And if you are, then I think you also know that there is no Charter right to abortion. Why do you keep saying there is a Charter right to abortion when you surely must know that there isn't?

Now there actually are freedom of speech rights and freedom of conscience rights, which of course morph nicely into "freedom to vote a particular way" rights. Got it? Conscience rights-yes. Abortion rights-no.

And you do know that a child in a mother's womb is not part of her body right? I'm sure you know this from school, it's called the science of Biology, you have heard of it, yes? Please tell me you have. I just couldn't sleep at nights if I thought you'd never heard of Biology before.

So please Justin, tell me please that you'll start getting your Biology and Charter rights--right. Okay? And if you need a bit of remedial help, please have a look here. You'll learn some amazing things.

Glad we had this little talk.

Respectfully yours,
etc. etc.

Educating politicians is a tough job - someone's got to do it

We need to educate New Brunswick politicians on abortion. The two ads below will go along way in doing this.

I hope the politicians also check out the website mentioned in the ad.

Lots of good information to help clear up the myths perpetrated by the pro-abortions like that boring mantra that "abortion is a right" and what the Supreme Court Justices said in the Morgentaler decision and what they did not say.

Come to think of it, abortion diva Joyce Arthur might learn a thing or two as well. Assuming she wants to learn a thing or two about abortion.

Also see New Brunswick Right to Life.