Friday, July 29, 2016

Hillary wants us to change our religious beliefs

More scary stuff from Hillary Clinton from 2015:
"She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”" emphasis added

Abortion - blame it on the pinkos



Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Canadians support Cassie and Molly's Law

Great news on the results of a poll on Cassie and Molly's law:
"Poll confirms majority of Canadians support legislation that creates a new offence for criminals who knowingly injure or cause the death of a pregnant woman’s preborn child: Wagantall
Ottawa, ON – Today, MP Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton-Melville) released the results of a national poll that shows the majority of Canadians support legislation that will create a separate offence when a violent criminal knowingly injures or causes the death of a preborn child while committing a crime against a pregnant woman. 
According to the Nanos poll, a majority of Canadians are in favour of Cassie and Molly’s Law, with nearly 70% of respondents saying that they support a law that would make it a separate crime to harm or cause the death of a preborn child while harming a pregnant woman. Support among women is even higher at nearly 75%..."
Of course not all people are happy with this bill. They have to attack it. Which is really kind of pathetic. But Cassie and Molly's law is a fantastic piece of legislation. This law, which we now know the majority of Canadians support, would make a new offence in the case where a woman has chosen to keep her unborn child. It is a good law. A positive law. A law that provides extra protection for a woman who is carrying a child she loves and she wants.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "abortion rights". The pro-abortions think they have to protect these "rights" at all costs, at all times, never letting up in their relentless attack on anyone and anything they perceive would harm these precious sacred "rights" of theirs.

Their rabid ideology can only blind them. I feel sorry for them.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Trump - The lesser of two evils

Fred was surprised when I told him that I would vote for Donald Trump. As Ted Cruz said yesterday, all voters should vote their conscience. Well my conscience wouldn't let me vote for Hillary Clinton. Besides all of Clinton's scary shenanigans, she is horrendously pro-abortion.

Even though we know there are Canadian MPs who are pro-life, they are scared to death of saying or doing anything public about it. If they do they are shouted down and vilified. Both by other MPs and by the pro-abortions. Our Conservative party has gone from being pro-life to being pro-silent to being...pro-choice? I don't know, but their silence is deafening.

Not in the US. Republicans put their pro-life views into their policy paper: That the unborn child has a "fundamental right to life"; that it should be a crime to sell fetal tissue; that they are against assisted suicide and euthanasia; that they support assisting women who face unplanned pregnancies; that they support a Born-Alive Infant Protection Act; that they support Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts; that they are against sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities; that they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans are not afraid to say they are pro-life. They are not afraid to act pro-life. And good grief, there are even pro-life Democrats down there. I'm pretty sure the Liberals and NDP are bereft of any pro-life MPs, at least any that will speak out that they are. Cowards? Or afraid?
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; do not be alarmed, for I am your God. I give you strength, truly I help you, truly I hold you firm with my saving right hand." Isaiah 41:10
Isaiah where are you when we need you?

And where does our fear/cowardice of saying we are pro-life get us? Absolutely nowhere. We have a 100% pro-abortion legal system, all paid for by the tax-payer. That's where not speaking out gets us. The US has all kinds of abortion restrictions. Tons of them. They are not afraid.

Plus, Donald Trump's running mate Mike Pence is unequivocally pro-life.

Yes. If I were American, I would have to vote for Donald Trump.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Begging the question about abortion

Why the Statement "A Woman Has the Right to Control Her Own Body" Begs the Basic Question in the Abortion Debate. By by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Libertarians for Life, Copyright © 1978

(Posted with permission from the author)

Some people claim that abortion is legitimate because (i) a woman has a right to control her own reproduction, or (ii) a woman's body is her own property, and is therefore, rightfully subject to her exclusive control. Neither of these claims squarely supports the pro-abortionists.

I. First, a woman can control her own reproduction in three ways: viz., (i) by abstinence from sexual activity; (ii) by contraception; and (iii) by abortion. (She can also control it by destroying her offspring after birth; but very few pro-abortionists argue that infanticide is legitimate.) Now, no one doubts that a woman has a right to sexual abstinence and to contraception.  But her "right to abortion" is in issue. Therefore, to say that abortion is legitimate because a woman has a right to control her own reproduction merely begs the question: it merely says "a woman has a right to abortion because a woman has a right to abortion". This is not an argument, merely a fiat statement. And mere fiat is not enough.

II. Second, even if a woman's body is her own property (which no libertarian would deny), the question still remains whether the body of the unborn child is also the woman's property.

A. As a matter of biology, an unborn child is not "part of a woman's body" in the same sense that her liver, heart, or other organs are. It is a separate entity involved in a special symbiotic relationship with the woman, but not part of her. Therefore, the unborn child cannot be the woman's property in that sense.

B. To be sure, the unborn child lives inside the woman's body. But an entity does not necessarily become the property of an individual because it is in or on that individual's property. (Even a trespasser on someone else's land does not thereby become the landowner's property, in the sense that the landowner may do whatever he will with the trespasser.) The question remains whether the unborn child has a right or privilege to live within the woman until its birth. If it does, it cannot be the woman's property to dispose of as she sees fit.

C. Of course, the woman always has the physical power to abort, and thereby destroy the unborn child; and, in the sense that the child is always subject to that sort of physical control, one could say metaphorically that the child is the woman's "property" in a physical sense. But the question is whether the unborn child is the woman's property in a moral or legal sense: that is, whether it is right or just for her to exercise whatever physical power she possesses. (The murderer always has physical power over his victim. That may make the victim metaphorically his "property" in a physical sense; but it does not make murder moral. Mere temporary might does not make right -- at least not to libertarians.) Therefore, the mere physical power of the woman over the unborn child does not make the child the woman's property in any sense meaningful to the ethical debate over abortion.

III. In sum, the argument that abortion is legitimate because a woman has a right to control her own body simply misses the point: which is, what right does a woman have when certain of her actions endanger the body, and therefore the life, of another person, the unborn child? Every person has a right to control his own body; but this gives no one a right to use his body to injure another person's body through aggression. It is not enough, therefore, to talk about the woman's property right. What must be considered is (i) whether the unborn child, an entity separate from the woman, is a person entitled to its own rights; and, if so, (ii) what its rights are as against the woman. If the child is not a person, or is a person without rights, then (by logical necessity) it will be the woman's property. But if the child is a person with rights, then (by logical necessity) to the extent of those rights it cannot be the woman's property. To invoke a woman's "property rights" in support of abortion before these two questions are answered against the unborn child is not to support abortion with arguments -- but instead to avoid rational argument entirely.

(Dr. Vieira is an attorney practicing constitutional law.)

Friday, July 15, 2016

Doctor assisted death safeguards are an illusion

For anyone thinking that doctor assisted suicide is Canada is a good thing, I suggest they read this paper (A Right to Voluntary Euthanasia? Confusion in Canada in Carterby John Keown.

The paper identifies all the abuses that have taken place in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland. It also details why the United Nations, the UK, the US and Ireland all have grave concerns about these abuses.

John Keown, is Senior Research Scholar, Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics.

Starting on page 29, Keown discusses the problems in jurisdictions where euthanasia has been legalized.

Pages 29 to page 45 will give the reader a good understanding of the abuses in Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland.
"...The first official survey [Netherlands] disclosed that in 1990 there were 2,300 cases of voluntary, active euthanasia and 400 cases of physician-assisted suicide; that over 80% of these cases went unreported; and that there were a further 1,000 cases of active euthanasia without explicit request (mostly, but by no means all, involving incompetent patients). The evidence from Belgium paints a similar picture: the common performance of non-voluntary, active euthanasia and a frequent failure to report. The evidence from Oregon is much more limited: there have been no comprehensive surveys like those in the Netherlands. Moreover, the safeguards in Oregon are in significant respects, not least the absence of review committees, even laxer than those in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Oregon law’s safeguards have been aptly described by leading health lawyer Professor Alexander Capron as “largely illusory...” 
"...The undisputed empirical evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium shows widespread breach of the safeguards, not least the sizeable incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia and of non-reporting..." 
"...the [Carter] judgment skates over the official condonation of nonvoluntary euthanasia of disabled infants by the Dutch courts and medical profession, and fails even to mention (despite it being cited in evidence) the repeated criticism of the Dutch by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The judgment also fails to give anything like adequate attention to important expert committee reports which have taken full account of the Dutch experience in their unanimous and considered rejection of euthanasia, not least the reports of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and of the New York State Task Force. The judgment states that there is now much greater compliance with the requirement to report than there was “prelegalization.” However, voluntary euthanasia was declared lawful by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1984—in 2002 the legal guidelines were essentially translated into statutory form. The low rate of reporting in 1990 (18%) was, therefore, discovered six years after legalization. The fact that the reporting rate rose to 80% in 2005 (three years after the enactment of the statute) is an improvement, but from a low base, and obviously had nothing to do with “legalization.” That 20% of euthanasia cases in 2005 year were still being falsely and illegally certified by physicians as deaths by natural causes, and that some 550 patients were euthanized without the required explicit request, is hardly evidence of effective control..." 
"...the Dutch regime still falls far short of demonstrating effective control. If control were so effective, why the criticisms by the U.N. Human Rights Committee in 2001 and again in 2009? The assertion by Battin that the empirical data from the Netherlands “demonstrates that no or little substantive abuse has occurred” bears little relation to the disturbing reality disclosed by the Dutch surveys, unless she entertains the peculiar view that non-voluntary euthanasia is not a “substantive abuse.”
On page 37 Keown discusses The Ireland case in Fleming VS Ireland:
"...The U.S. Supreme Court had also noted that the state may fear that permitting assisted suicide would start it down the path to euthanasia with and even without consent. If suicide was a right, it was a right enjoyed by every man and woman and could not be limited to competent, terminally ill adults, and the decision of a duly appointed surrogate decision maker was for legal purposes the decision of the patient. A limited right to physician-assisted suicide was likely, in effect, a much broader license, which could prove extremely difficult to police and contain. This concern was further supported, the U.S. Supreme Court had added, by evidence from the Netherlands, where the Dutch government’s own survey had disclosed 1,000 cases of euthanasia without explicit request, and the euthanasia of disabled neonates and demented elderly.  
"...It noted also that the European Court of Human Rights had affirmed, in Pretty, the U.K.’s blanket ban on assisting suicide, concluding that “[c]lear risks of abuse do exist, notwithstanding arguments as to the possibility of safeguards and protective procedures,” and that in Haas v. Switzerland it had observed that “the risks of abuse inherent in a system that facilitates access to assisted suicide cannot be underestimated."
The Irish Divisional Court on Carter:
"...the Divisional Court could not agree that the accumulated evidence from other jurisdictions supported Justice Smith’s conclusion that “the risks inherent in legally permitted death have not materialized in the manner that may have been predicted.”
It added:
“Neither the evidence tendered at the hearing before us or the evidence given before Lynn Smith J. regarding contemporary practice in either the Netherlands or Belgium can be regarded as encouraging or satisfactory. After all, it was not in dispute but that in 2005—the year for which the latest data is available for the Netherlands—560 patients (some 0.4% of all deaths) were euthanized without having given their explicit consent.
Moreover, the corresponding figure for Belgium was apparently higher, “as 1.9% of all deaths which took place in the entirety of Flanders between June and November 2007 were without explicit request.” The corresponding figure for Switzerland was also high: “almost 1% of all deaths.” Justice Smith had also noted that evidence was given that in some cases euthanasia without request is lawful in the Netherlands. In short, observed the Divisional Court, the evidence showed that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, Belgium, and  is “strikingly high.” Further, the evidence before Justice Smith also showed that “family burden” was more often cited as a reason for non-voluntary euthanasia, and that non-voluntary euthanasia predominated in respect of the elderly who were in a coma or demented, that is, “precisely one of the vulnerable groups most at risk.” Her finding that relaxation of the law did not disproportionately impact vulnerable groups such as the elderly or those with disabilities had to be measured against this evidence, as well as the evidence (apparently accepted by her) that disabled neonates were not infrequently euthanized in the Netherlands. The Divisional Court concluded, “Against that general background, the Court cannot at all agree with [Justice Lynn Smith’s] finding that the risks inherent in legally permitted assisted death have not materialized in jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands.” The court went on that, while it agreed with her that scrutiny of physician-assisted suicide would have to be “at the highest level,” she herself acknowledged that, more than thirty years after relaxation of the law, compliance with essential safeguards in the Netherlands was “not yet at an ideal level.” 
The Divisional Court added: “In fact, it might well be said that this is altogether too sanguine a view and that the fact that such a strikingly high level of legally assisted deaths without explicit request occurs in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland without any obvious official or even popular concern speaks for itself as to the risks involved in any such liberalisation.” (All emphasis added)
The Irish Supreme Court upheld the Divisional Court's decision.

Planned Parenthood's and fetal body parts in a nutshell

This video is a good synthesis of Planned Parenthood's selling of fetal body parts. It is less than five minutes long. For those people who still question whether or not these allegations are true, watch it.

You can also check out all the Center for Medical Progress videos here.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Charter Challenge for Freedom of Expression goes to court

We've started to raise funds for our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information.

We also have our court date set for Feb 1, 2017.

If you can help financially that would be awesome.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Pro-abortion doctor can't articulate dangers of RU-486

Here we have another grand example of CBC's abortion bias.

Heather Hiscox on CBC News interviews Wendy Norman (the abortion doctor/researcher) complaining about restrictions on dispensing the RU-486 abortion pill, legal in Canada as of July 1.


Wendy Norman says that the rules for dispensing the dangerous drug RU-486 are very unusual and were "bizarrely put in place", because doctors will have to dispense them to women, and that this will cause difficulty for women in remote areas.

First of all, here are the rules for dispensing RU-486 in the US. Seems like the US is doing exactly what Canada is doing, ie RU-486 must be dispensed by doctors.
"Mifeprex is supplied directly to healthcare providers who meet certain qualifications. It is only available to be dispensed in certain healthcare settings, specifically, clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber. It is not available in retail pharmacies, and it is not legally available over the Internet."
So Dr. Norman, maybe our rules are not really that "bizarre" after all?

In fact, there are actually a truckload of dangers associated with RU-486, especially in remote areas. But when Hiscox asks Dr. Norman why these dispensing precautions, Dr. Norman has no idea. I am not kidding. She basically she says she doesn't know why, that this is "very strange".

Has Dr. Norman never read any of the evidence on the dangers of this drug, especially when one considers women taking it in rural areas? Not a single word about the dangers come out of Dr. Norman's mouth. What she does say is this:
"We are hopeful that the extraordinary degree of evidence available around the world on this medication, it really only stops a pregnancy from growing in a safe and effective manner. (Notice Dr. Norman's euphemism for killing an unborn child but I digress)".
Finally, the last time I complained to CBC about their abortion bias, they wrote me off. Which I expected and wasn't surprised they did. This time they didn't even make any pretense about not being biased. Dr. Norman was the only person interviewed in an entire seven minute segment.

Nobody else who could actually speak of the dangers of this scary drug, was even bothered to be interviewed. Why am I not surprised?

Monday, July 4, 2016

How science will blow the abortion debate wide open

Good article in Saturday's National Post.

"When it comes to debating the rights of the unborn, history may show our current quiet phase to have been the calm before the storm: the transition period when science, not ideology, became the driving force for a bill of rights for the fetus. 
One factor driving the change: advancements in neonatal medicine are pushing the envelope of fetal viability well beyond what anyone ever imagined. 
In May 2015, Time magazine responded to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine on premature infants by asking the question that’s on many people’s minds: “How low can preemies go?” The landmark study pointed to fetal viability at 22 weeks, versus the currently accepted 24 weeks. According to Time, this raised new ethical dilemmas about “how much care is too much — and how much is suddenly not enough” and, by extension, “how an even slightly lower age of viability affects the fraught debate over abortion.” 
In particular, the study calls into question the controversial practice of late-term abortions, performed after the 20th week of gestation. According to partial data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2014 there were 605 abortions performed at 21-plus weeks. In the decade to come, as saving the lives of premature infants in that grey zone of viability becomes commonplace, it will make the dividing line between the wanted and the unwanted so much more intolerable, especially for the many Canadians who self-identify as “reluctantly pro-choice.” 
Neonatology isn’t the only stream of medicine that will eventually force the government’s hand in establishing the rights of the unborn — fetal medicine is making equally course-altering strides. After a $54.5-million gift to its Women and Children’s Health Research Institute, the University of Alberta recently joined other hospitals and universities worldwide who will, in the decades to come, establish a new normal in fetal care, including life-saving surgeries and diagnostics that can be performed in utero as early as 13 weeks. 
These scientific leaps won’t just expand our notion of duty of care for the fetus, they will blow it wide open. 
Will a woman’s autonomy still be the deciding factor on issues of life and death?..."
After being in Toronto this past weekend where everything was Pride Pride Pride Pride...I thought this comment below about the article from a Del James Cornell University, was particularly timely:
"It would great to see strong, rational voices in the general population advocating for rights of the unborn with the same vigor we have seen people advocating for LGBT rights. Human rights are rights for all humans and science continually demonstrates that a fetus is a human being unto itself."