Friday, September 30, 2011

Pro-life MP speaks out (part deux)


Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
The Dupes of Hazard Reruns - International Planned Parenthood’s Weasel Words, Dishonesty, Deceit and Death
For Immediate Release                                                           September 30, 2011
OTTAWA – Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott commented today on IPPF’s deceitful language on abortion to con the Canadian government for taxpayer dollars under the Muskoka Maternal/Child Health initiative.

IPPF had revised and resubmitted its funding proposal to CIDA after the 2011 election. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/09/22/pol-planned-parenthood-funding.html
“The IPPF is trying to dupe us into believing that because Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to countries where abortion is supposedly illegal, the money won’t be spent on abortions,” says Vellacott.

“But we know in Bangladesh, for example, where Canada is funding, this nefarious organization will do early abortion which they euphemistically call ‘menstrual regulation’ by vacuum suction. If a woman hasn’t had her period in 8 weeks, they will do a ‘menstrual regulation’ – that’s an early abortion by another name.

“In this way, IPPF will be using Canadian taxpayer dollars for funding abortions directly or, to use other deceptive language, they will be ‘establishing non-pregnancy in the first trimester.’ http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Ipas_launches_country_program_in_Bangladesh.aspx
“So funding IPPF in these 5 countries contradicts a criterion for Prime Minister’s Stephen Harper’s noble initiative to save the lives of women and children in developing countries.
“Even in those countries where abortion is technically illegal, it’s na├»ve to think that Canadian tax dollars are not being used to promote abortion. One of IPPF’s main publicly stated goals is to aggressively dismantle abortion laws in each country around the globe and have abortion recognized as a universal human right.  “Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration”  http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/0DB48DF8-921A-47D3-AB23-A21CE2FB83EB/0/IPPFsexualRightsPocketsize.pdf
“Under the guise of ‘education’ Canadian taxpayer dollars will be used to advance IPPF’s unfounded claims that abortion is necessary to prevent maternal deaths, when in fact abortion does great harm to women. http://www.mauricevellacott.com/Newsroom/March%205,%202010%20-%20AAPLOG%20letter%20re.%20Joyce%20Arthur%20assertions%20on%20abortion.pdf
“In addition, 6 million Canadian taxpayer dollars to IPPF frees up money from other sources to fund abortions directly.”

Vellacott continued: “Earlier this week we heard that a US Congressional Committee is investigating the national chapter of IPPF in America, for financial irregularities and concerns about the cover-up of sex trafficking of women. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/ PPFA has also covered up cases of incest and the rape of minors. There are also reports of their racial/ethnic targeting, for example, against Blacks and Hispanics. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html , http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/29/report-proves-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-hispanics/
“IPPF has come a long way in sanitizing its language to disguise its true agenda since the days of its founder, Margaret Sanger, the leading exponent of the modern eugenics movement. Sanger was much more direct about her motives. Sanger freely criticized charitable programs that helped poor pregnant women and their children whom she referred to as ‘dead weight of human waste.’ “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html And her ‘plan for peace’ included ‘a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation’ for those she deemed ‘unfit.’“A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/
“But Planned Parenthood’s coded language today doesn’t fool me,” Vellacott concluded. “This controversy over funding will in the end have a positive effect. It will have exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF’s agenda, and it exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide.

“It’s still not too late to stop this 6 million dollar misappropriation of Canadian taxpayer funds, because IPPF does not meet the criteria of our commendable maternal and child health care initiative. IPPF will be doing abortions by another name.”
– 30 –
For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249
8 “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html
9 “A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some pretty interesting reading there on Margaret Sanger and her "legacy", International Planned Parenthood. Quite the pair those two.

It's time to stop giving Canadian tax dollars--that would be my tax dollars and your tax dollars--to IPPF for abortion promotion.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Pro-life MP speaks out

All I can say is that MP Brad Trost is both gutsy and pro-life. What a delightful combination: Response to Federal Government's Decision to Fund IPPF

Regarding the government's decision to fund International Planned Parenthood, Trost says:
"People have asked how funding IPPF squares with the repeated statement that Canada will not fund abortion internationally. The PMO attempts to square this circle by only permitting IPPF funding to go into countries that ban abortion.

Considering that promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF, this sort of political hairsplitting only seems to make sense in the Ottawa bubble. This is a position I totally reject."

What a breath of fresh air wafting over from Parliament Hill, that stodgiest of stodgy places.

Trost continues:
"The battle over the IPPF continues.
Pro-Life politicians have been taught a lesson.
The government only responds to Pro-Life issues and concerns when we take an aggressive stance.
We will apply this lesson."

I'm really liking your plan there Mr. Trost. All we need to do now is get a few more of those pro-life MPs to hop on the horse and run that IPPF stagecoach out of town.

Friday, September 23, 2011

The six million dollar miracle

So Canada is giving 6 million dollars to International Planned Parenthood Federation. To provide sex education and contraception in developing countries in Africa. Where abortion is currently illegal.

Where do I begin?

How about, with one of IPPF's main goals? That would be,"to make abortion legal and safe everywhere."

IPPF also promotes abortion access as a woman’s right, in fact as a human right in international law. IPPF says:
“sexual and reproductive rights should be internationally recognized as human rights and therefore guaranteed for everyone.”

As everyone who knows anything about IPPF knows, "sexual and reproductive rights" includes "abortion rights."

So let's see. If I was IPPF, and I advocated to make abortion legal everywhere, and I had 6 million dollars to provide sex education to countries where abortion is illegal, don't you think I might, you know, do some self promoting of abortion, in those very same countries to make abortion legal? So that I could drum up some more business?

Remember that IPPF admits their goal is to make abortion legal all over the world. That's the business Planned Parenthood is in. Abortion. You can't separate the goals from the money.

And what about last year when the Liberal motion to fund abortion in the Maternal Health initiative was defeated? I thought Canadians were assured by Mr. Harper, that there would be no funding for abortion in the third world? That our tax dollars would not fund abortion in the developing world?

Or do I have that wrong?

But of course that was all before the election. Before the Conservatives under Mr. Harper won their majority. The majority that couldn't have been won without the support of social conservatives.

Well now Mr. Harper has his coveted majority. So really, who needs those pesky social conservatives anyway? Who needs those irritating pro-lifers who are always complaining how Canada is virtually the only country in the world with legalized abortion right up until birth, and how we have that darned-dubious-distinction of being the most abortion tolerant country in the world?

So here's a thought. What if Mr. Harper decided to give money to IPPF for a very strategic reason? After all, we all know that Mr. Harper is no dummy.

What we do know is that, with more money, IPPF can continue to spread their gospel of abortion. To every corner of the globe. Right around the world. Everywhere. Resulting in more countries converting to legalized abortion for all nine months. For any reason. Or for no reason. Just like Canada.

Now we would share our darned-dubious-distinction with other countries. Maybe the whole world. And Mr. Harper wouldn't have to listen to pro-lifers complain anymore about how Canada is the most abortion accepting country in the world. Because the rest of the world would have limitless abortion just like us.

So I'm just wondering. Was this the agenda Mr. Harper had all along? Hidden until he got his majority?

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Politics cannot be separated from morality

It was only a matter of time until it happened in Canada, and now it has. As Mark Steyn put it, we now have "fourth-trimester abortion".

Canada's moral compass, let free to swing wildly in any and all directions as far as abortion is concerned, has simply regressed to the point where fully tax funded abortion for all nine months of pregnancy wasn't enough.

The case of course, is about Katrina Effert, who in 2005, gave birth and then strangled her baby boy.

Judge Joanne Veit said in her ruling of the case:
“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

In a country where abortion is already fully legal until the precise moment of birth, we've finally taken the step over the precipice into that inevitable moment after birth.

Nobody should be surprised though. Not with political "leaders" who stick there fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes shut, cover their mouths, and dance the hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil, abortion-rights-dance, round and round the mulberry bush.

Thomas More, patron saint of those same politicians taught us "by his life and his death that man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality."

Alas, Thomas More never came to Canada.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Is there a beam in your eye?

Open letter to Canadian Members of Parliament

Dear political leaders,

Next week you go will back to work. You will lead. But before you can lead, you must see. And before you can see, you must ask yourself the following question: Is there a beam in your eye? The beam of prejudice. Against the unborn.

May I suggest you set aside 25 minutes and listen to Father Frank Pavone's recent sermon on leadership? It's well worth the listen.

Fr. Pavone's sermon is based on Luke 6:39-42. Don't worry if you aren't a Christian, that's okay. Jesus is pretty easy to understand:
JESUS TOLD HIS DISCIPLES A PARABLE: Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye.

Fr. Pavone starts his story by telling us about a particular leader, Saint Peter Claver, a Jesuit priest.

Fr. Claver ministered to the slaves as they arrived in the slave ships in Cartagena, Colombia during the slave trade. Fr. Pavone tells us that some people criticized Father Claver and what he was doing. They said to him:
"they are just slaves, why are you getting so worked up about slaves?"

Fr. Pavone answers the question:
"...leadership means you must take the beam out of your eye first before you can see. The blind can't lead the blind. See first, then lead. We have beams in our eyes. We have to take them out. One of those beams is the beam of racial hatred. Racial hatred is just one category of hatred in general...we judge entire groups of people...we put them lower than other groups of people. This is a persistent mistake in human history and in the human heart."

So why are people so blind to it--that beam in their eye called prejudice? Because:
"It's so powerful, it's so subtle, it's so persistent, we are blinded by it. We try to be politically correct: Some will pride themselves and say oh yea, we got to be against racism...I hate racism, we got to eradicate it... and meanwhile they think about the unborn children and they say--oh it's only a fetus..."

This is what Fr. Pavone thinks about these politically correct people:
"You hypocrite...can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? Equality! Social justice! Freedom for all! Legal abortion! You hypocrite. You blind guide. You fool. How and why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, and do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? Prejudice."

Are we hypocrites? Is Father Pavone right? Do we say we stand for equal rights for all--except the unborn? Are we leaders? How big is that beam in our eye? Can we lead with the beam intact?

I really hope you listen to it. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Friday, September 2, 2011

They will have no heart

I've been thinking. Is there a politician in Canada today, who would be willing to part with his or her head, because of a higher principle?

I've been, you know, cogitating and ruminating, and scratching my own (attached) head and pondering, and staring out the window and waiting for the light bulb to come on. And I can't come up with any names.

I'm not saying there isn't anyone like this, there very well could be. I'm just saying, I don't know of such a person.

And to boot, what if that person was someone who was also a an educated person, a lawyer and chief advsior to one of the most important heads of state in the civilized world?

Well, there was such a man many years ago, and his name was Sir Thomas More. More was born in 1478 and was Lord Chancellor to King Henry the Eighth.

What was More's higher principle? Well, he refused to swear an oath on the Bible, saying that he publicly approved of King Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn, after the King had divorced his first wife Catherine.

This story is documented in the 1966 movie and play by Robert Bolt, a Man for all Seasons.

Bolt tries to make us understand the reason More couldn't bring himself to take this oath:
“Unfortunately his approval of the marriage was asked for in a form that required him to state that he believed what he didn’t believe, and required him to state it as an oath".

You see, More was a man who deferred to a higher power. King Henry was More's earthly master. But More was a Christian and a Catholic. He knew that ultimately it was God to whom he must answer.

Bolt was intrigued by More's story. He was attracted to More, even though he himself was not a Catholic "nor even in the meaningful sense of the word a Christian."

Bolt explains:
"So by what right do I appropriate a Christian Saint for my purposes? Or to put it another way, why do I take as my hero a man who brings about his own death because he can’t put his hand on an old black book, and tell an ordinary lie?”

Then Bolt tells us why:
“A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite exceptionally to the statements, when he wants to make an identity, between the truth of it and his own virtue; he offers himself as a guarantee.”

Bolt is taken by the integrity of this man whose principles are so unshakable that he cannot be coerced into saying something that is against his deeply held principles. More believes that the oath he is asked to swear to, is against what forms the basis of his very being. He is being asked to sanction the marriage of his king, a marriage he cannot condone because it is is not licit in the eyes of his God. And he is being asked to swear that the marriage is licit, so help him, as God is his witness. More cannot do this. He holds this principle so highly that he is prepared to die for it.

Bolt was also attracted to More because of his social context. This was not just some ordinary citizen:
"He was a scholar, a lawyer, he corresponded with the greatest minds of Europe, as the representative and acknowledged champion of the New Learning in England”.

More was a family man and was also a friend of the King. According to Bolt, his "visitor’s book at his home would have been a who’s who of the sixteenth century."

Bolt asks the obvious question:
“But why did a man so utterly absorbed in society, at one particular point disastrously part company from it?” Because, Bolt says “The English Kingdom, his immediate society, was subservient to the larger society of this Church of Christ, founded by Christ, extending over Past and Future, ruled from Heaven.”

The story tells us that More is banished to the Tower of London and that his family pleads with him to take the oath. It details his subsequent trial and execution.

Finally, even when More must take part in his own kangaroo court trial, fully knowing the eventual inevitable outcome, and exhausted from the ordeal, we witness his still sharp mind take on his accusers. At the end of the trial More is asked if he has anything more to say:
"To what purpose? I am a dead man. You have your desire of me. What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road you have opened. For first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose Statesman walk your road."

Which brings me back to my ruminating about our own politicians, who by the way, More is the patron saint of.

We know in Canada we have a lot of pro-life MPs/MPPs/MLAs. Some are publicly pro-life. Some used to be publicly pro-life but have gone eerily silent on the subject. From the outside looking in, what has happened to their pro-life principles? Have they changed their mind and now believe abortion is okay? Have they abandoned their principles for political reasons? Have they "disclaimed their hearts and presently they will have no heart?"

Who knows the answers to these questions? Well, they know. And God knows.

Interesting story don't you think?