Friday, January 31, 2014

MP Maurice Vellacott chooses equal shared parenting bill C-560 - for the sake of the children

Of four items of equal merit, Vellacott selects equal shared parenting bill C-560, for the sake of the children

For Immediate Release                                                                     January 31, 2014

OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott gave the following statement in the House of Commons today, announcing which initiative he was bringing forward for debate in Parliament this spring:

Mr. Speaker, I have had a difficult decision to make. I have 4 items on the Order Paper, and all of them are of great importance. One is a democratic reform initiative, and two are explicitly pro-life measures. One bill I have on the order paper is for the sake of the children. They all deserve to proceed in this place, but regrettably I can only choose one at this time.

I have selected Bill C-560 to move forward to 2nd reading debate in this Chamber. It is my bill to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting a rebuttable presumption in cases of marital breakup involving children.

Aside from proven abuse or neglect, over three quarters of Canadians want equal shared parenting to be the presumption in our courts when marriages unfortunately break down. Research clearly demonstrates that equal shared parenting is in the best interests of children.

Also based on conversations I have been a part of, I have good reason to believe that the other 3 items I have on the order paper will be picked up in due course by other good MPs who have spine and foresight. And for that I am also truly grateful!

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249

Stephen Harper's house of cards

It's been an interesting week for Stephen Harper.

Abacus is reporting that more Canadians think that Justin Trudeau would do a better job of the economy than Stephen Harper. Imagine that?

(UPDATE: I just looked at the report in greater detail and it seems to me that the questions asked in this poll on the economy were only asked about Thomas Mulcair, and not all the leaders. Yet when I google the topic, all the news agencies including Abucus, seem to be framing this as how the leaders would do on the economy.)



And Justin Trudeau released his Liberal Senator bombshell this week, making all Liberal Senators independents. Read today's Chris Selley: Look who suddenly has a plausible Senate reform plan for a good analysis on this move.

And veterans aren't happy with Conservative Minister Julian Fantino.

And last but not least, Social Conservatives haven't been too happy for some time now, with Stephen Harper's world famous refusal to let us debate abortion in Parliament.

Everyone else seems to be just catching up I guess.

My oh my. Where will it all end?

Thursday, January 30, 2014

My response to the Premier - who never responded to me

January 10, 2014

Dear Ms. Wynne,

As noted in my email below to Ms. Matthews, I sent you a question on October 20, 2013, regarding your Open and Transparent Government initiative. Perhaps you missed it in my first letter? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

Here it is again:

Can you please tell me if your plans for open and transparent government will include the lifting of the secret curtain on abortion services in Ontario?

Thank you so much.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

My response to Deb Matthews

January 10, 2014

Dear Ms. Matthews,

Thank you for your December 19 response to my October 15 and 16 letters in which I asked you six questions regarding the abortion exclusion clause your government made to the Ontario Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA).

You say that the Premier Kathleen Wynne referred my email to her, to you--regarding her Open and Transparent Government Initiative. I had asked Ms. Wynne if she would lift the secrecy of the availability of abortion statistics under this initiative. However, I could not find your answer to this question in your letter. I will go back to Ms. Wynne and ask her the question again.

In your letter you state that:
"Regarding the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) published abortion statistics, I understand that CIHI specifically indicates that when reporting abortion figures, counts of abortions by province are an underestimate count and that it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data. For information on CIHI’s compilation of statistical data you may wish to contact CIHI directly."
I have contacted CIHI on numerous occasions already about this. Because of the way CIHI produces those statistics (i.e. they base their statistics on hospital discharge records and not medical billing records), they were unable to produce more accurate statistics. Therefore contacting CIHI again (as you suggest), will still not yield accurate statistics. So again I ask you, can you please provide me with a way to obtain accurate abortion statistics?

You say that "These amendments were debated and passed in the Legislature." My question was to provide the links to when the abortion exclusion clause was debated. Not to other amendments.

So I once again reviewed all 20 links on the Bill, from the link you provided me, including the transcripts of the public hearings on the bill on November 22 and 23. There were no instances in any of these documents, where the abortion exclusion was discussed, debated, or mentioned.

Therefore I must assume that the abortion exclusion clause was not debated in the legislature. Please correct me if I am wrong about this assumption.

I asked you what rationale the government had for excluding abortion services from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you why abortion was the only taxpayer funded medical service singled out for exclusion from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter to me. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you how excluding abortion services from FIPPA "enhances openness and transparency in the public sector"? Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be as so kind to answer it for me now?

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Why we need Motion 490

I think the timing of Maurice Vellacott's Motion 490 is perfect.
M-490 would change the votability process for Private Members' Business through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Mr. Vellacott wrote this in his backgrounder on Motion 490:
Examples of how the current votability determination process has failed  
The most recent and obvious example was Mark Warawa's Motion 408 in 2013. Mr. Warawa appealed the PMB Subcommittee's non-votability ruling to the PROC committee. The members of PROC, which upheld the subcommittee's decision, conducted their deliberations behind closed doors--even MPs who had attended the meeting as observers were told to leave.
I have been compiling the results of my most recent ATIP to the PCO on that very Motion of Mr. Warawa's.

I had asked for all correspondence from the public and from the media, to Prime Minister Harper, regarding Mark Warawa's motion 408.

In other words, I was looking to see how much support there was for Motion 408.

What I learned, was that the Prime Minister received a total of 699 individual emails/letters. Of these 699 letters, there were only two letters against the motion.

That's two letters against the motion. 2 letters. Two letters. T-W-O letters.

Without putting too fine a point on it (pun intended), that means that only point three percent (.3%) of Canadians were against Motion 408.

In one of that large number of against-the-motion letters, the letter writer simply provided the Prime Minister with some of Joyce Arthur's usual pro-abortion nonsense on the subject.

Letter #1:


The second against-the-motion correspondence, is listed below, and includes the letter writer's original email. Then the PM's response. Then the writer's additional response to the PM's response.

Letter #2:
Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Ambrose:
Just one day after Minister Ambrose finally acknowledged that the majority of Canadians have no interest in debating abortion, the Canadian Press is reporting that (text blacked out) used House of Commons letterhead to request that the RCMP investigate any abortions performed after 19 weeks in Canada as possible homicides.
Not only do these MPs pretend ignorance of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a fetus from the definition of human being in relation to homicide law, they implicitly challenge the constitutionally protected right and freedom of women to choose to have safe, legal abortions.
I note, too, that House of Commons time has been taken up with numerous anti-abortion petitions since the defeat of Motion 312, and that, if legislative experience in the U.S. on the matter of a ban of sex-selective abortion serves as an indicator, more time will be taken up in defeating the equally unwanted Motion 408.
When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? 
I look forward to your response.
The PMO responded with this:
Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.  
Thank you for writing.  
Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reru votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons titre bien infonnes de ('opinion des correspondants.  
Je vous remercie d'avoir ecrit au Premier ministre.
To which the outraged letter writer responded:
Excuse me, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to my question: When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? He has not responded. Will he kindly respond?
So like Bill C-510, nearly all Canadians who wrote the Prime Minister on M-408 (99.7%), supported it. (Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support)

So why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to the majority of Canadians? Why is he instead listening to only two Canadians? Is this the kind of people Mr. Harper is getting his advice from?

If it is, then I think Mr. Vellacott's newest Motion is just the thing we need.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Maurice Vellacott gives notice of motion on Democratic Restoration of Private Members’ Business

Nice motion Mr. Vellacott.

This is the fourth Motion of late that Vellacott has put on the Notice Paper. 

One is his equal parenting bill. And his other two Motions are here.

The only question left is, which one will Mr. Velacott choose? 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which one he decides to go forward with.

For Immediate Release                                                                                  January 27, 2014


OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott gave notice today of a Private Member’s Motion that would reform the way Private Members Business is conducted. The motion will be on the Notice Paper tonight.

The motion would fix a current vulnerability in the system that has led to a situation where a small group of MPs are able to control, often from behind closed doors, what issues are and are not allowed to be voted on in the House of Commons.

“Private Members’ Business is one of the few mechanisms a backbench MP has to speak out on issues of the day that are of deep concern to them and thousands of Canadians” said Vellacott. “Yet a handful of MPs who, for whatever reasons, don’t want an issue to come to a vote, actually have the power to prevent their colleagues in the House from voting on that issue” Vellacott said, “--even if a majority of Canadians want that issue to be voted on! That kind of a muzzling is a blight on democracy!”

“The motion I am proposing is a bulwark against arbitrary and capricious decision-making when it comes to Private Members Business. Were this motion to pass, decisions on the votability of private members’ bills and motions would be made in a fair and objective fashion, free from any sort of political interference or shenanigans. It will be an important step forward on the road to restoring Canadians’ trust and confidence in our political institutions.”

Vellacott concluded: “This motion will help prevent the erosion of democracy and transparency in Parliament. It will help to restore respect for the rights of individual MPs from all parties to represent Canadians on significant issues. And it will help to restore our freedom to stand up and be counted.”

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Planned Parenthood targets young women

I just watched this video produced by Planned Parenthood in Northern UK,

There are a whole series of them and they feature a really happy chirpy 20-something young lady.

I've watched a couple of the videos, and the young lady is happy happy happy in all of them. I also looked through the series and couldn't find any of these videos on those other choices. You know the ones where a woman keeps her child, or puts her up for adoption? No no, only abortion, contraception, emergency contraception, etc.

Here are a few quotes from the video:
I realize that abortion is a big scary word but maybe it doesn't have to be. Scrape away all the myths and the political debate. All the sexism, all the stigma. And you have a perfectly safe medical procedure, that's an important option for a woman to have if she becomes pregnant before she's ready. (who's politicizing what PP?)
Medication abortion: This is where medication is used to do what what would happen naturally if you had a miscarriage. (PP are you equating a medical abortion to a miscarriage??)
Aspiration abortion: Uses a gentle suction to remove the pregnancy. A little tube that will empty out the contents of the uterus. And afterwards you get a snack, because we all need snacks!!!  (Got to "remove that pregnancy" or the "contents of the uterus". Never use the word unborn child or fetus. Better not to go there eh PP??)
Dilation and evacuation. For pregnancies that are a little farther along. On the second day you will have the pregnancy removed. (there's that removal of that darned pregnancy again)
I definitely think that all the stigma and politicization about abortion can make things that more complicated. (still not politicizing PP??)
And from the one on Emergency contraception.
There is a little mythy myth floating around out there, that Emergency Contraception is the same thing as an abortion pill. That's not true. It only prevents pregnancy if you're not already pregnant. It's not going to do anything if you are already pregnant. (Really PP??)
Super cheap marketing tool for Planned Parenthood. I have to admit, they're smart, those Planned Parenthood folks. Get young women to use social media to market their pre-born baby killing services. (OMG PP is so, like, amazing!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!)

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Abortion legislation: understanding the real world

Jonathon Van Maren from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform interviews Senior Legal Counsel of Americans United for Life, Clarke Forsythe (author of “Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square”; and “Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v Wade”) about the virtue of prudence and how it relates to legally limiting the harm of abortion.

Whenever I listen to, or read about, providing some legal limits for pre-born children in Canada, I feel sad. I know there are some pro-life people who don't believe that incremental/gestational limits are moral. I hope they will listen to Jonathon's interview with Clarke Forsythe.

I also imagine that this fact causes the pro-abortions to rub their hands together with glee. They hope that because there are those who would never support a partial ban on abortion, that Canada's any-time-any-reason-tax-payer-funded abortion regime, is safe from change.

As it is, we already have an uphill battle trying to change the status quo on abortion. This just makes the battle more difficult.

I can't imagine why any reasonable Canadian would oppose a ban on late-term abortions. But there are some. And they lie on both ends of the abortion debate.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Standing with those who oppose injustice

Stephen Harper is to be commended for his strong support of Israel.

Mr. Harper's statement even appeared in the National Post today and was "Sponsored by a friend of Israel".

It is difficult though, to read some of what he said, and not see the dark parallel to what Stephen Harper could say in support of pre-born children. I expect my saying this will invoke collective eye-rolling from the pro-abortions, about how those fanatic-religious-extremist-women-hating-anti-choicers have to bring everything back to unborn children. Sucks to be them I guess.

In Mr. Harper's statement, he talks about Canadians supporting Israel because "it is right to do so." He says that "Canada has consistently chosen often to our great cost, to stand with others who oppose injustice and to confront the dark forces of the world. It is, thus, a Canadian tradition to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is convenient or popular".That "we live in a world where that kind of moral relativism today runs rampant."

If I had $28,000--that's what the ad cost--I'd love to write a full page ad too in the National Post. It would be in support of pre-born children. Of course, most pro-life people do what they do for free, myself included. They don't have that kind of money to throw at a one page ad. We do it for the children, the ones without voices.

With the 100,000 plus children slaughtered annually in Canada how can Mr. Harper not act on that fact? Why can't he do it because it is the right thing to do? Because he opposes injustice? Because he confronts the dark forces of the world regardless of whether it is convenient or popular? Because he won't stand for the moral relativism? 

Mr. Harper can stand with the Israelis. But he won't stand for the hundreds of thousands of unborn children dismembered, decapitated and disposed of every day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

How can Mr. Harper in good conscience, not do it for the children?

Friday, January 10, 2014

Who's hard-line on abortion?

Stephen Maher:
"As a young man, Harper became a Conservative because he was angered by the way Trudeau changed Canada, but as a practical politician has steered his party away from hard-line positions on bilingualism, multiculturalism and abortion, defining the limits of politically acceptable Canadian conservatism."
Stephen Maher says that Stephen Harper has steered his party away from a hard-line position on abortion? Are we talking about the same Stephen Harper?

Did Maher not hear the Government's hard-line pro-abortion position articulated by Gordon O'Connor in his scathing speech against Motion 312? Does Maher not know we have one of the most pro-abortion countries in the world? Does Maher not realize that Harper will do whatever is in his power to try to silence Conservative MPs who dare to speak out on the plight of children in the womb who are slaughtered at a rate of 100,000 per year in Canada (at taxpayers' expense, I might add, no questions asked)? Does Maher not remember when Mark Warawa's motion to simply condemn one aspect of abortion which 92% of the population also condemns--discrimination against baby girls through sex-selection--was deemed non-votable?

Preventing abortion debate allows the status quo of 100,000 deaths of innocent children per year to continue unabated; the pro-life position is marginalized; the pro-abortions are more emboldened; abortion becomes more normalized. And it becomes harder and harder to turn the tide. I don't know how much more hard-line on abortion one can get. This is more hard-line than any Conservative PM I can recall in Canada's history. No, Stephen Maher is wrong. Harper has steered his party way, way over to the hard-line pro-abortion side.

Remember Stephen Harper's hidden agenda? What do you think this is? His agenda remained so hidden, for so long, that he can even fool the media. How hidden can you get? 

And Stephen Harper was smart. He did it all incrementally. Harper was never clear about his position initially, and he made some subtle comments about not dealing with the issue. But as the years went on, he became more against it and more direct about it, saying his government wouldn't restrict it, then saying he would do everything in his power to prevent a bill coming to a vote, then O'Connor's speech was the ultimate abortion manifesto, and then actually ensuring M-408 didn't come to a vote. But in the end Stephen Harper created a hard-line abortion policy.

It's ironic that so much of what Harper wants to do is being prevented by the courts, as Maher says, and yet the Supreme Court has said on several occasions that Parliament can do something about protecting preborn children. Yet Harper refuses to do that.

So the courts will allow it. Social conservatives want it. The public would support some reasonable measure. And yet here we are, one of the most anti-preborn child countries in the world.

Not hard-line my foot.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Stop vacuuming for a second

I almost missed George Jonas's piece on Thursday, the Suicidal Generation. Thankfully my husband pointed it out to me.

Jonas had some very insightful words about the state of the world, and how the patriarchy has given way to the matriarchy.
"No generation has been as adept at sawing off the branch on which it was sitting as ours. We want to live in good health forever — fair enough — and start by killing off those who would help us achieve this ambition. We have nothing against babies, and actually wish other people had more of them because we may need them as ratepayers and organ donors, but having to bring them up cramps our style. 
As if extending post-retirement — i.e., unproductive — life by 20-30 years weren’t economically reckless enough, we pursue policies of longevity while casually slaughtering those who might pay for it. Sometimes I feel like going: “Hey, fellow, stop vacuuming for a second! That lump you’re about to remove is your only possible means of support in your Viagra days.
“Never mind if it’s alive or not, you are! You’re alive, and not only want to live past the age of peak productivity, but past the age of self-sufficiency as well. Cost what it may in diagnostic, surgical, pharmaceutical and geriatric research and treatment, you want to explore the far shores of dependency and maximum consumption of medical care and social services. Yet there you go, vacuuming away your sole means of support as if there were no tomorrow — and for you, there may not be.”
...
Had I been born a little earlier, say, 30 million years ago, in the same place, I wouldn’t have become a columnist. What geologists call the Pannonia basin was the bottom of a shallow sea then, covering much of Europe. Born in such a place, chances are I would have been an ancestral fish. I couldn’t have participated in building a society in which the least safe place is the womb and babies have no one to fear but their mothers. Yes, I would have missed something for sure."
I for one, am very glad that Jonas has received the Order of Canada. Much better than one of his predecessors, Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Who made his living from vacuuming out babies. Thank God for small mercies.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Religion arguments are only a distraction

I am always amazed when people insist on equating being pro-life to being religious. Like these three letter writers did in reply to my letter in the National Post. 

All  three writers brought religion into the discussion. This is always a warning sign to me of a weak argument, just ahead. And I'm never disappointed. 


They can't come up with any good arguments to defend their "pro-choice" viewpoint.

I just read George Jonas: Arguing bioethics with politicians and perch and he offers his own insight on the topic.
“So I read in the paper that you support life,” an acquaintance tells me. “Funny; never knew you were religious.” 
Religious? Funny. I never knew one had to be.
Jonas goes on to explain his point with his usual charm and wit. Read it. You'll love it.

Striking a nerve about not voting Conservative

Today's National Post published three letters in response to a letter I wrote. All the letters are below.

(Note that my original letter actually had another line that never made it to print. It addressed two of these letters objections, about who we could vote for instead of the Conservatives? The deleted sentence read: "I would vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal." One letter writer thought that "I should do what's best for Canada". I fully intend to do this, and as it currently stands, that means I won't be voting Conservative. Not unless I see some big changes with their leadership and/or their "pro-choice" stance. There is a lot more meat in these letters to argue with, and I'll leave it to others to do that.)

My letter as published in the NP:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.
I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject.
As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.
I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
And the three responses in today's NP

‘The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state’

Re: I Used To Be A Hard-Core Conservative, letter to the editor, Jan.2.
A sure path to election defeat would be a decision by the Conservative party to take an anti-abortion position. I am also a staunch supporter of the party and the idea that government would be able to make decisions regarding a woman’s right to choose sends us back to the dark ages. Religious dogma has no place in political party policy.
Carol Joseph, Burlington, Ont.
Letter-writer Patricia Maloney is critical of the Prime Minister’s policy on abortion. I am also a hard-core conservative, but I support Stephen Harper for several reasons. First, he made a commitment to eschew the subject and has stuck by his word. He has not stated what his true stand on abortion is, but we all know that all opposition parties favour the matter; a dangerous, if not destructive political situation. In addition, legally prohibiting abortion would no more to stop it than prohibiting alcohol or drugs — those laws, in fact, made drug and alcohol use many times more destructive.
The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state, but are the responsibility of religion and Ms. Maloney should look to her religion to rectify this tragic situation. Finally, if I don’t vote Conservative, I have nowhere to go.
Hugh Buckley, Vancouver.
Patricia Maloney said that as a conservative, she would have a hard time supporting the federal Conservatives in the next election because of inaction on creating abortion law. Has she considered the alternatives? Justin Trudeau, who is Catholic, espouses many beliefs that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. So did Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chr├ętien and Paul Martin, all Catholics. I doubt if Thomas Mulcair could be counted on to defend the unborn, either.
Stephen Harper is not a Catholic but his government is focusing foreign aid on developing countries that work to save the lives of new mothers and their children. With men like Jason Kenny and John Baird in his cabinet, I have no doubt which party is the best for this country.
I sincerely hope that Ms. Maloney will rethink her position and do what is best for Canada.
Sybil Fretz, Pickering, Ont.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Blessed John Paul II allowed 'restrictive measure'

More common sense on gestational legislation from Blessed Pope John-Paul II and Sean Murphy.

Protecting the innocent - why man invented criminal law

In December in the National Post, Mike Schouten commented on Maurice Vellacott's motions M-482 and M-483.

Schouten said:
"The Supreme Court justices of 1988 would never have anticipated a 25 year legal vacuum surrounding the rights of children before birth. They struck down Canada’s abortion law on constitutional grounds, but were very clear that it was the mandate of Parliament to enact new laws protecting pre-born children. In fact, even Justice Bertha Wilson opined as to where protections should be placed when she said, “The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seem to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” In light of this judgement, as well as more recent jurisprudence in this area, it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to study the impact of the status quo in our law."
A letter writer didn't agree that an abortion law was needed. The letter writer said:
"Any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed. Laws cannot impose compassion and understanding. I feel that any woman who is contemplating aborting her fetus is in acute need of support or treatment. It follows that any action that addresses her mental, emotional or physical health is to be decided as an individual case. The law is not the instrument of choice to handle such a situation."
I responded with this letter:
Letter-writer Ruedi Mueller feels that a law is unnecessary to protect the unborn, as “any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed.” Since crimes against humans always involve emotions (like rape or murder), his reasoning makes no sense. We create laws to protect the innocent; it is exactly why man invented criminal law. Preborn children are the prime victims in abortion and they are incapable of protecting themselves. As a civilized society, it is up to the rest of us to make sure that we provide that legal protection. 
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

New Year's Message to Kathleen Wynne


Thursday, January 2, 2014

Federal Conservatives don't support all conservatives

Rex Murphy talked about 2013 and how Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the senate scandal:
"As always in a crisis, Mr. Harper drew up the drawbridge and retreated to the fortress, i.e., his political base. There is a genuine hardcore of Conservative followers who will stay with the party however dark the clouds; and when in difficulty, Mr. Harper tends to them and them only. (The Liberals and NDP both can claim a similar core of diehards.) But in Mr. Harper’s case, the power of the Senate scandal was such as to detach even some from this otherwise unshakeable support group."
Here is my response to this in a letter in today's National Post:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject. [This motion was deemed non-votable because it was supposedly outside of federal jurisdiction. So how could it be legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?]

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

The "logic" of being "pro-choice"

One of the things I most love about pro-life people is how logical they are. They don't hide behind ridiculous euphemisms like that all time pro-abortion favourite "pro-choice".

Randy Alcorn gives us an example of this superb logic in this piece.

I'd love to see a pro-abortion write a similar article defending their favourite word. Of course for such an article to be as effective as Alcorn's article, it would have to be logical, which of course is impossible. So it will never happen.

Alcorn ends with this:
"Pro-lifers must never argue against choice—that’s a battle that can’t be won, and shouldn’t be fought even if it could be won. Rather, we must argue against the real issue—abortion. 
Whenever we hear “pro-choice,” we must ask, and urge others to ask, “Exactly what choice are we talking about?” 
If its abortion, the question is, “Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill children?” By opposing abortion we are not opposing choice in general. We are opposing one choice in particular—child-killing. 
Consider the popular pro-choice question, which I’ve seen on bumper stickers: “If you don’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” It’s intended as a discussion stopper. But notice how choice is substituted for abortion. When we insert words that reflect reality, the question becomes, “If you don’t trust me to kill a child, how can you trust me to raise a child?” . . . Huh? 
When we oppose the “right to choose” rape or “the right to choose” abortion, we aren’t opposing a right. Rather, we’re opposing a wrong. And we’re not narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so."