Monday, February 8, 2016

Clinton or Rubio - who's pathetic?

More from Marco Rubio on his stand on abortion:
“To me, the issue of life is not a political issue; it’s a human rights issue,” Rubio said. “But it’s a difficult issue because it puts in conflict two competing rights. On the one hand is the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, which is a real right, and on the other is the right of an unborn human child to live. They’re in conflict and as a policy maker, I must choose which one of these two sides takes precedence. I’ve chosen to error on the side of life.” 
But unlike with marriage, Rubio invoked abortion as an issue in which he said he’s eager to challenge Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a general election. 
“Here’s what I find outrageous: In five Democratic debates, the media has not asked them a single question on abortion,” Rubio said. “And on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child. Why don’t they ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that partial-birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country, she thinks that is a fundamental right? They are the extremists when it comes to the issue of abortion, and I can’t wait to expose them in a general election.” 
“I just believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws,” Rubio said. “If I’m elected president, and there’s a bill passed that saves lives, but it has exceptions, I’ll sign it. But I do believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws. I’ve already said, for me, the issue of life is not a political issue, and I want to frank, I would rather lose an election, then be wrong on the issue of life.”
Here Hillary Clinton gets all indignant with Rubio:
"I think it's pretty pathetic," Clinton said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "This is something that illustrates how Senator Rubio has just been going as far as he can to try to, I guess, buttress his credentials with certain parts of the Republican constituency. I've been on record for years about where I stand on making abortions safe and legal, the exceptions that are appropriate that should be looked into. And the very difficult choices that very few women have to confront that lead to excruciating kinds of decisions."
Notice that Hillary has dropped the "rare" adjective from her Safe, Legal and Rare mantra. I think that's pathetic.

Planned Parenthood (apparently for the first time ever) endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's Planned Parenthood of selling-fetal-baby-parts fame. Planned Parenthood is also the biggest abortion business in the US. PP and Hillary. Partners. That's pathetic.

Hillary if you want to see pathetic, look in the mirror.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Protecting human life even if she doesn't have a birth certificate

Look at this guy, Republican Marco Rubio. Why can't we have a Canadian politician like this?

Rubio is unequivocally pro-life:
“I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not. Whether they can speak or not. Whether they can hire a lawyer or not. Whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live,” Rubio said during the debate. 
“What I have advocated is that we pass law in this country that says all human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection,” the GOP presidential candidate continued. “In fact, I think that law already exists. It is called the Constitution of the United States." 
Rubio added that he does not specifically support rape or incest exceptions, saying that “[while] I think both of those instances are horrifying…I personally believe you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy.” 
“The value of life is timeless,” he responded. “Science has decided that it’s human life. ….Abolustely it has? What else can it be? It can’t turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey.”
It's so refreshing to hear a politician who will speak out for pre-born children. Who won't let others silence him. Who isn't afraid to stand up and publicly call for their protection. Who has courage. Who doesn't bow to moral relativism. How wonderful.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Assisted suicide should NOT be done by doctors

From today's Ottawa Citizen regarding Dr. Margaret Somerville's take on physician assisted dying:
"She said the harms and risks can be limited if government adopts these recommendations: 
  • To avoid the future “normalization” of physician-assisted dying, any new law must make it clear that it is an exception, should only be used as a last resort, and will be used rarely.
“If Canada had the same percentage of total deaths of deaths by (physician-assisted dying) as the Netherlands and Belgium currently have (about 4 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively) we would have between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths each year.” 
  • Patients requesting such a death must first be offered high-quality palliative care, including fully adequate pain management.
  • A new profession should be established to carry out physician-assisted dying. The practitioners should not be health care professionals or, if so, only ones who have permanently retired from practice. Practitioners should be specially trained, licensed and have travel money provided to give people across Canada equal access to euthanasia.
“For nearly 2,500 years, physicians and the profession of medicine have recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia are not medical treatment and this position should be maintained and these interventions kept out of medicine,” Somerville told the committee.
“If this approach is not adopted, two publicly available lists of physicians and institutions should be established, those which will provide euthanasia and those which will not. This is a reasonable compromise between Canadians who agree with euthanasia and those who oppose or fear it.” 
  • Assisted death should be restricted to people who are terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than four weeks, from a physical illness, disease or disability and experiencing extreme physical suffering.
It should not be allowed for children unable to consent for themselves. “Whether it should be available for ‘mature minors’ is a separate question.” 
  • There must be psychiatric consultation to rule out depression, or coercion, undue influence of others, or duress, “at the least where there is any possibility of these factors affecting the request or consent to it or any doubts about the person’s mental competency.”
  • A Superior Court judge should certify that all legal requirements for access to the procedure have been met.
  • There must be a minimum 15-day waiting after the patient’s request to die.
  • A national research and review body should be established to collect records of all cases, investigate where there might have been non-compliance with the law, and report, at least annually, in a way that does not breach individuals’ privacy, but informs Parliament, provincial legislatures, courts, professional licensing and disciplinary bodies, medical institutions, the public.
“This body should also be able to make recommendations for changes in law, regulations or practice when these are needed to prevent abuse of euthanasia or to protect vulnerable people.”"
I agree with Dr. Somerville especially about doctors not being the killers, and said so in this letter to the National Post in December 2014:
"Should Canada ever find itself in the sorry state wherein assisted suicide is legal, it should not be up to the doctors to perform this task. Doctors went into medicine to save lives, not to end them. Doctors are healers, not killers.
Instead, there should be a new “death technician” job for euthanasia and assisted suicide. These people would be technicians who are trained in killing people. They can’t be doctors, because obviously, it is a conflict of interest to be a doctor and also to end people’s lives. When we see one of these “death technicians” walking the halls of the hospital, there would be no mistake as to what their duties are.
When and if I am ever in the hospital knowing that my life is nearing its natural end, I want to make sure that my doctor — who has my life in his hands — would never ever willfully aid in my demise. Conversely if I see the death technician enter my room, there would be no doubt as to why he’s there."

Saturday, January 30, 2016

FOI Charter Challenge helps pro-abortions too

I can't write about abortion statistics. Neither can NDP MP Kennedy Stewart:
“That’s [Therapeutic Abortion Survey] been collected since 1970. And then they cancel it. They cancelled the publication, the tables, and the survey,” he said. “We should look into it more. Again, we’ve had a lot of news reports about how abortions are hard to obtain in different provinces. Once you get rid of this tracking, it makes it very, very difficult to do things like enforce the Canada Health Act.
Nobody else in this country can write or comment about abortion statistics either, because you can't write or comment on something (especially on something as political as abortion) if you don't have the facts to back you up.

The abortion statistics we do have from CIHI, are woefully inaccurate. And we know too well that Ontario has chosen to exclude and hide all Ontario abortion statistics from any and all Freedom of Information requests. BC isn't doing any better.

So our Charter Challenge will benefit even the NDP. You're welcome Kennedy Stewart.