Friday, March 07, 2008

Judie Brown, Personhood Amendment and Catholic Bishops

Judie Brown of American Life League asks some of the same questions I’ve been asking lately.

**********

We remain steadfast, but…

By Judie Brown

Over the last few weeks, something rather bizarre has occurred in the pro-life movement and it is difficult for me to get my arms around it. So, I have decided to share the puzzlement I am experiencing in the hopes that others, upon reading this, will join me in a fervent Lenten prayer for healing.

This past January 17, as a personhood proposal was being presented as a way to amend Georgia’s state constitution, the two bishops in that state made a public statement in opposition to it. They wrote, “As the Catholic bishops of Georgia we, along with our brother bishops throughout the world, have unceasingly advocated for the sanctity of human life and continually supported legislative efforts to increase protection of human life.”

They claim to agree with the “objectives” of the proposed state constitutional amendment but oppose the approach because it “does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia.”

A few weeks later, on February 26, the two Catholic bishops in Montana issued a statement expressing their views on a proposed personhood amendment to the Montana state constitution. They wrote, “We, the Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain steadfast in our commitment to defend human life in all of its stages, from conception to natural death.”

They went on to commend the “objective” of the efforts to amend the state’s constitution, but pointed out that they support efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution rather than the state’s. They wrote that they “do not believe that CI-100 is the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change.” They listed several strategies which they deem appropriate at the state level, including funding pregnancy centers, providing support for expectant mothers and passing a law requiring parental notice with judicial bypass prior to a minor acquiring an abortion.

Two days later, the Colorado Catholic Conference issued a statement regarding the proposal by Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Colorado state constitution with personhood language. In that statement, the Colorado Catholic Conference said, “We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion… but we do not believe that this year’s Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue this issue at this time.”

The Colorado conference denied that any of the bishops had lent their support to the personhood initiative being promoted by Colorado for Equal Rights even though Bishop Tafoya, one of the three bishops in Colorado, had his picture taken with the campaign leader, Keith Mason, and had given every indication that he supported the effort.

The thread that ties these three separate actions together is the realization that even though these seven Catholic bishops in three states all share the goal of doing all they can to end the slaughter of the innocents, they also agree that personhood amendments to state constitutions are not realistic, timely or the best way to do things. Statements like those I have just excerpted are the source of my confusion.

For the record and, if I may say so, for the babies, allow me to point a few things out.

It was not anyone in the pro-life movement, but rather United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s [abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

In other words, if those who understand that a preborn child is a person from the point of his creation want to restore absolute legal protection to children, then personhood must be established in the law. Justice Blackmun did not tell us how personhood could be established, but he did give us a clue and this is why so many pro-life activists have chosen to do what they can to propose personhood amendments to the various state constitutions. The hope is that one of these proposals will be passed by the people and if it eventually arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, the actual merits of personhood will be argued.

Further, on March 7, 1974, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros spoke at a United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the entire National Conference of Catholic Bishops and told the senators that any proposed constitutional amendment “…should clearly establish that, from conception onward, the unborn child is a human person in the terms of the Constitution.”

In that same statement, Cardinal Medeiros also made it perfectly clear that every proposal should be “universal and without exceptions.”

So, a totally pro-abortion Supreme Court justice and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church both came to the same conclusion: Personhood is the key to ending the tyranny of the abortion empire in America. And yet when we have three actively dedicated pro-life organizations pursuing the very goal that Cardinal Medeiros encouraged, we also have Catholic bishops publicly distancing themselves from such efforts and opposing them in a variety of ways.

This is discouraging, but not surprising. In fact, it is a harbinger of things to come if those committed to pro-life principle do not press on rather than succumb to a spirit of despair.

Now is not the time to accept defeat simply because of the negative statements coming forth from Catholic conferences whether in the east, the west or anywhere in between. We cannot change the statements of those Church leaders who have chosen to oppose personhood efforts, but on the other hand, we cannot abandon the very principle that is foundational to all pro-life efforts not only in Montana, Georgia and Colorado – but everywhere else.

Among the many legal minds who have contributed to the fundamental strategy that underlies the necessary pro-life legal efforts in these three states is that of the wise Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice. In 35 years, he has never changed his perspective on personhood. What he said in 1973 he continues to say today. He teaches that it was the denial of personhood that was the foundation for everything that the Nazis did to the Jews, the Christians and others under their regime. The idea of relegating entire classes of people to subhuman status was the crux of the Nazi euthanasia program and all the gruesome acts that followed it.

Professor Rice ties that very attitude of annihilation by dehumanization directly to the abortion industry of today. And as he has written, the affirmation of the non-personhood of the preborn child means that the particular human beings who fall into this category are subject to all manner of cruelty and abuse, including death because they have no rights – they are not human beings according to the law.

This alone should give rise to a total advocacy of personhood on the part of every single pro-life American in our day and age. Whether a Catholic prelate or a man on the street, there is no denying that the culture of death now has a tragic grip on the thought process of those in authority in our nation and that must change.

As Professor Rice so eloquently wrote, “Roe applies precisely the principle that underlay the Nazi extermination of the Jews, that an innocent human being can be declared to be a non-person and subjected to death at the discretion of those who regard him as unfit or unwanted. The justices, who triggered the abortion avalanche by their own free decision, are no more defensible than the Nazi judges who acquiesced in the crimes of that regime and the functionaries who administered its decrees at Auschwitz and similar places.”

As if that were not enough, he concluded on this sober note, “The Court will allow states to enact marginal restrictions on surgical abortions, but those abortions are becoming obsolete because of early abortifacient drugs and devices.”

So, I am left bewildered and anguished by these questions: Why not personhood? How can one be steadfast and at the same time oppose such sensible strategies?

As Alan Keyes warned, “The evil that we fight is but a shadow of the evil that we do.”

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. For three decades, she has advocated personhood declarations in law.


Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Do Canadians Want to Pay out EI Illness or Maternity Benefits When There is no Child?

A release today from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), a federally incorporated, non-profit and non-partisan, advocacy organization dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.

January 31, 2008
Let's Talk Taxes: Federal

A not so private matter
by John Williamson

The assertion about “abortion being a private matter between a woman and her doctor” has been made a lot this week, mostly by proponents of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canada’s abortion law 20 years ago. It’s a clever jingle, but not entirely true. At least not as far as taxpayers are concerned.
...Full Article


h/t BigBlueWave


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

What Part of Pro-Life Don’t You Understand?

Continuing with some recent postings and the very urgent business of maintaining the integrity of the concept “pro-life,” I bring to the reader’s attention a recent column by Mark Crutcher. For those readers unfamiliar with Mark, here’s an introductory paragraph from his biography.

For many years, Mark Crutcher has been an outspoken and uncompromised opponent of abortion. In 1986, he created the Life Activist Seminar and trained more than 15,000 pro-life activists all across the United States and Canada. Then, in 1992, he founded Life Dynamics which has since become widely recognized as one of the most innovative and professional pro-life organizations in America.

If anyone knows what the word “pro-life” stands for, I believe Mark Crutcher does. He’s an aggressive, principled fighter for the Unborn.

**********

Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life. This is especially true for politicians. For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term. The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.

Given that, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried. For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not.

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion. After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being. So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is, "I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere." That is not a pro-life position. It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”

Another stance often mischaracterized as pro-life is the “pro-life with exceptions” position. You’ll hear people say things like, “I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest” or “I am pro-life, but abortion should be legal when the baby is handicapped.”

It is a complete abandonment of the pro-life principle to say it should be permissible to kill selected categories of children. When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances. If not, then it is clear that they don’t see born and unborn children as morally equal. In other words, they do not subscribe to the most fundamental tenet of the pro-life position.

In the grimy world of politics, a new position is emerging to test the boundaries of what it means to be pro-life. We are now hearing presidential candidates say that they are pro-life but that each individual state should be allowed to set its own policies regarding abortion. Of course, the problem with that thinking is that the right to life is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of his or her life without due process of law. Even Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade, said that if the personhood of the unborn was ever established the right to abortion evaporated.

When a politician claims to be pro-life, he or she is asserting that the born and the unborn are both persons. So the question becomes, how can they logically claim that only the born have a constitutional right to life? And the answer is, they can’t.

To understand how preposterous this is, imagine that a state legislature passed a law allowing parents of newborn children to take a few days to decide whether they are really prepared to start a family. Under this new statute, if they decided they were not ready for this responsibility, they would be legally allowed to have a physician slit their child’s throat. In that situation, how many of these “pro-life” politicians who are now saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, would say that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of these born children? Of course, the universal consensus would be that they not only have that right, they have the duty to do so.

The point is, when someone claims to be pro-life but says that abortion is a state matter, that is an unmistakable indicator that either (a) they do not truly believe that the born and unborn are both persons or (b) they are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.

It may also be indicative of something the pro-life movement has done. For 35 years we have hammered away at legalized abortion when, technically speaking, abortion is not the root problem. In reality, it is only a symptom. The disease is the absence of legal protection for the unborn.

After all, if a woman who is not pregnant wanted to submit to abortion, we might find it bizarre and we would probably question her sanity, but in the final analysis it would probably not concern us any more than it would if she were getting a tattoo or body piercing.

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die. And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life. So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn. Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.

[Source]


Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Canada Silent No More to Meet Thursday at Supreme Court to Renounce Canada's Day of Infamy

Press Release
CANADA SILENT NO MORE
January 17, 2008

Contact:
Denise Mountenay-780.939.5774 (home/office)
780.267.5714 (cell)
Founder/President of CANADA SILENT NO MORE
www.canadasilentnomore.com
Author of Forgiven…a true story


We do not celebrate, but mourn the loss of our aborted children

What:
Canada Silent No More-women who’ve had legal abortions gather to expose pain and damage of abortion…

When: Thursday January 24th from 10-11AM

Where: In front of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa

Why: Memorial to renounce the 20th anniversary of abortion on demand

Who: Women from across Canada who are silent no more, voices for our aborted children

Background: Canada Silent No More is a growing movement of women and men, hurt and damaged by legal abortion physically, emotionally and spiritually. We are collecting affidavit testimonies for possible lawsuits against abortion doctors and cancer societies for not informing women about ALL of the risk factors to abortion.

See www.afterabortion.org and www.abortionbreastcancer.com for stats/research

One of our Canada Silent No More women had an abortion by Dr. Morgentaler:

I was sued by him for a million dollars to keep quiet and go away…it is time to speak out!


**********

RELATED NEWS

In St. John’s NL the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland & Labrador will be holding a similar protest. From the email of today sent out by Patrick Hanlon, President of the Association:

Abortion Anniversary Protest

In January 1988 a Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling allowed abortion on demand for any reason and at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. To mark this anniversary, the Right to Life Association will be holding a protest in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on Duckworth Street on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 12:30-1:30 PM. This protest will encourage the public to ask themselves "Abortion. Have we gone too far?" For information visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca or call 579-1500.

I was interviewed by CBC TV today about our ads. It may be on the 6:00 CBC News today (Tuesday). Please pray for a fair representation of the issue and that the report will touch hearts.

Patrick also reminded the pro-lifers in the province of the Facebook Campaign being promoted by Theresa Matters of the National Campus Life Network. Theresa’s email appears below:

Abortion. Have we gone too far?

Help create another abortion buzz on Facebook by participating in this online campaign.

Details:
January 28th marks the 20th year of unrestricted access to abortion in Canada. With this campaign we hope to help Canadians (and others on Facebook) question the good of this for our country.
*Please note: we are NOT asking you to get a Facebook account if you do not already. If you are not on Facebook, please consider sending this to friends who are.

How to Participate: Starting now,
1. Change your profile picture to one of the attached ads. (Save the attachment and upload as your profile picture.) Also be sure to adjust the “thumbnail” version of the picture as needed.

2. Post a note on your profile about the significance of January 28th . You can use this one, or the press release from LifeCanada or write up your own:

Did you know?
Canadian law allows abortion to take place anytime during pregnancy. Even after the baby’s heart starts beating. Even after the arms and legs are formed. Even after the baby can suck its thumb, feel pain, and survive outside the womb. No medical reason needed. Abortion. Have we gone too far? Visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca

3. Join the Facebook group "abortion. Have we gone too far?" (press release is posted here) & check out www.abortionincanada.ca . This is the site that was made for the campaign by LifeCanada. There are also billboards and bus ads across the country thanks to various Right to Life groups with the same message: abortion. Have we gone too far?

4. Encourage your friends to do the same!

Thank you for your participation! Be sure to also be active offline with friends, family, co-workers etc. There are always opportunities to teach our fellow Canadians about this injustice towards unborn children and their mothers.

For Life,
Theresa
Executive Director
National Campus Life Network
Phone: 416.483.7869
Email: director@ncln.ca


Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Feminists for Life Slams Sarah Weddington for Betraying Women in Roe v. Wade Case

Texas attorney Sarah Ragle Weddington gained world-wide fame when she and Linda Coffee represented "Jane Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case in the United States Supreme Court.

This upcoming Tuesday, January 22, is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade.

Feminists for Life of America has something to say about Weddington's betrayal of women.

**********

Weddington's Betrayal of Women
Serrin M. Foster
President, Feminists for Life of America

On the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, many will focus on the undeniable humanity of the unborn child now seen clearly by millions through sophisticated sonograms on Oprah as well as in Life and Newsweek cover stories.

Meanwhile, I will be reflecting on the impact of the choice made by attorney Sarah Weddington in 1973.

As her arguments for abortion before the Supreme Court made clear, Weddington saw the discrimination and other injustices faced by pregnant women. But she did not demand that these injustices be remedied. Instead, she demanded for women the “right” to submit to these injustices by destroying their pregnancies.

Weddington rightly pointed out the unmet needs of students: “…there are many schools where a woman is forced to quit if she becomes pregnant.” But Weddington didn’t argue against pregnancy discrimination or even for alternate solutions for a pregnant student.

Weddington did no better for women in the workplace. “In the matter of employment, she often is forced to quit at an early point in her pregnancy. She has no provision for maternity leave… She cannot get unemployment compensation under our laws, because the laws hold that she is not eligible for employment, being pregnant, and therefore is eligible for no unemployment compensation.”

For women with serious medical needs, she further noted: “There is no duty for employers to rehire women if they must drop out to carry a pregnancy to term. And, of course, this is especially hard on the many women in Texas who are heads of their own households and must provide for their already existing children.”

Weddington clearly saw the bind low-income women face when experiencing unplanned pregnancy: “At the same time, she can get no welfare to help her at a time when she has no unemployment compensation and she's not eligible for any help in getting a job to provide for herself.”

Weddington repeatedly said that women need “relief” from pregnancy, instead of arguing that women need relief from these injustices.

What if Weddington had used her legal acumen to challenge the system and address women’s needs?

By accepting pregnancy discrimination in school and workplace and the lack of support in society for pregnant women and parents, especially the poor, Weddington and the Supreme Court betrayed women and undermined the support women need and deserve.

Since then, millions of women have paid the price, struggling in school and the workplace without societal support. After all, when “it’s her body, it’s her choice,” it’s her problem.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in America, half of all abortions are performed on college-age women.

Since 1994, Feminists for Life has worked to address the unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students and staff on college campuses. For the past decade FFL’s Pregnancy Resource Forums on campuses across the country have revealed the still-unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students — especially a lack of housing, child care, telecommuting options, maternity coverage and medical riders for additional children. FFL found there is rarely a central place on campus for pregnancy and parenting resources. Even when resources are available, they are often not publicized. For pregnant and parenting students kept in the dark about the help they need and deserve, perception is their reality.

This March, which is Women’s History Month, Feminists for Life is helping college students make history for women by hosting Rallies for Resources on campuses across the country — so that women don’t feel driven to choose between sacrificing their children or their education and career plans.

The proposed Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Elizabeth Dole and Ben Nelson and Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Sue Myrick, would make grants available for up to 200 colleges and universities to host pregnancy resource forums, create resource centers on campus, and communicate available support on and off campus.

There was one thing Weddington got right. “Whether she's unmarried; whether she's pursuing an education; whether she's pursuing a career; whether she has family problems; all of the problems of personal and family life, for a woman, are bound up in the problem of abortion.”

Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.

Thirty-five years after Weddington capitulated to inherently unfair practices against pregnant and parenting women, those on both sides of the abortion debate should unite and say “no” to the status quo. Clearly women deserve better.


Labels: , , ,

Bill HB916 Affirms Georgia’s Right to Secede from USA over Abortion Law

Does it sound shocking to even think of the possibility? A US State seceding from the Union in 2008 over the injustice of abortion?

This news report What Do King George III and the U.S. Supreme Court Have In Common? from Georgia includes the following commentary:

Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, who can always be counted on for provocative legislation, has a bill that, among other things, declares the U.S. Supreme court lacked authority to issue its Roe v. Wade decision some 35 years ago and that states have every right to disregard it.

That’s exactly what Franklin’s bill – HB 916 – does, and then goes on to declare the practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se.

This bill, of course, won’t go anywhere, but it’s worth a read, anyway, for the impassioned argument he makes as to just how the U.S. Supreme Court – like King George III - overstepped.

But don’t dismiss the issue out of hand. A certain number of Christian conservatives are very anxious to pass the Human Life Amendment – HR 536 – which was introduced late last year, and which will be a center point of the annual Right To Life rally at the Georgia Capitol this year. (It will take place precisely two weeks before Georgia’s presidential primary. Gary Bauer is the guest speaker and Mike Huckabee has agreed to attend.)

The amendment’s chances of getting to the floor aren’t good this year. It requires a super-majority vote in both chambers, which it clearly cannot get. Given the math, House leaders want to keep it off the floor to keep from bogging down the House in an ultimately useless but highly controversial debate. Backers, however, don’t seem to see it quite the same way.

Here’s some of the language from the bill itself.

(4) The Supreme Court´s inability to determine what is human life cannot legitimately serve to prohibit Georgia from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect the lives of its citizens by prosecuting crimes against said person;

(5) The General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception;

(9) Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;

(12) The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of Roe v. Wade;

(13) As it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly the United States Supreme Court lacked the authority to pass, or order all states to strike or refuse to enforce, a law that is outside of its subject matter or federal jurisdiction;

(20) The nullification of a state´s properly promulgated laws is specifically delineated as an offense committed by King George against the states, for which separation became necessary; The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America;

(21) Compliance with, and continuation of, a fiat determination of the Supreme Court from nearly 35 years ago will cause the basis of this Union, and eventually the Union itself, to fall;

(24) As the United States Constitution confers to no federal branch either the authority over the definition or prosecution of murder, or the power to nullify the laws of a state that do the same, Roe v. Wade is 'no law,' is a nullity, and carries no legal effect in Georgia;

(25) The practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se;

Controversial pro-life activist Neal Horsley, who is running a campaign for Governor of Georgia under the banner of The Creator’s Rights Party [CAUTION: Graphic images], has this to say about the bill:

FINALLY! Georgia Law Makers Make REAL Move To Outlaw Abortion


Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2008

ProWomanProLife.org Personally Opposed But Will Not Force Morality

I held some hope when I wrote my posting yesterday that the women at ProWomanProLife.org might respond by simply removing what appeared to be ambiguity and say, “Yes, without hesitation we totally believe abortion ought to be illegal—even though our group will not be directly involved in trying to change the law.”

But today a different picture is emerging. In a blog posting today Andrea Mrozek, as well as Brigitte Pellerin, offered a shallow and twisted [respectively] response to my concern and both women purposefully avoided making such a simple pro-life statement as suggested. Their comments seem to indicate that [to some extent, not sure what extent] they are personally opposed to abortion but they will not deny a woman the choice to make that decision. They certainly don’t think the law should be interposed between a woman and her decision to abort.

So let’s see if I have this right. They are personally opposed but they don’t want to impose their morality [through the law or otherwise] on any woman. Women, they maintain, should be free to choose [the cruel killing of their unborn children] and in the meanwhile, until women are convinced [by their group and other “pro-lifers”] to make better choices, the killing of these children ought to be permitted under the law. Have I got that right?

That seems to be what Mrozek meant when she stated today,

I may well be Canada’s first pro-choice pro-lifer.

Perhaps to some people this sounds like a “moderate” position.

But what moderate or middle ground can there be between pro-life and pro-choice? Anything less than pro-life, i.e. EVERY life, always results in a dead child—somewhere, sometime, under certain circumstances. A pro-choice pro-lifer is an oxymoron, just as contradictory as the term “a cruel kindness” and, if accepted, provides cover for just another “pro-choice” apologist—one wearing a ‘pro-life” mask this time.

Regarding the name ProWomanProLife.org….

I strongly object to their use of the name ProWoman. On the basis purely of the tragic testimony of women in the CanadaSilentNoMore campaign, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent a woman from suffering the lifelong trauma and scarring of abortion. On the basis alone that 50% of all abortions end the lives of fellow women, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent the violent “termination” of an unborn child of the female sex.

I strongly object to their use of the name ProLife. If human life has intrinsic worth then EVERY life deserves protection. If pro-life doesn’t mean that, it means nothing. Words must mean something or they mean nothing. If human life is intrinsically valuable then we have a duty as a society to preserve and protect human life at ALL stages, including preborn stages. If law means anything and protects anything, it must first and foremost protect the most vulnerable human lives from willful destruction by others. Mrozek’s ProLife group, by definition, ought to unabashedly endorse such laws.

I have emphasized that ProWomanProLife.org ought to unabashedly endorse laws which protect unborn children from being killed and which protect women from the horror of an abortion choice. Note that I did not say the group ought to divert their energies into political activism to change current laws or even to otherwise change their approach. I am simply making the claim that for the sake of the integrity of the pro-life movement in Canada, ProWomanProLife.org ought to stand on the bedrock principle of endorsing such laws. In my opinion anything less than that disqualifies them from the title “Pro-Life.”

Wouldn’t it make sense for ProWomanProLife.org to simply go on record saying they believe the killing of unborn children ought to be illegal and then go about their business of convincing women of the wrong headedness of such a decision? After all, the current laws are indeed forcing somebody’s version of morality on Canadians and it’s a deathly, devastating version at that. Why then would they refuse to make the most basic pro-woman, pro-life, pro-child and pro-human rights statement of all?


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Is ProWomanProLife.org OK with Abortion Choice?

If not, I suggest a speedy correction to this headline if possible.

Referring to Andrea Mrozek, founding director of ProWomanProLife.org, the story notes

“She tells CFRA's Madely in the Morning the group does not seek to make abortion illegal in Canada.”

But I presume Ms. Mrozek is referring here only to the mission of ProWomanProLife.org and indicating that the scope of their activities does not include a component of actively advocating for a change in the legal status of abortion in the nation.

But surely she believes that the killing of unborn children in Canada ought to be illegal.

Surely.

I listened to the radio interview.

Ms. Mrozek says that her group

“is looking to eradicate abortion in Canada…but not by legislation...legislation is not always a particularly effective way of addressing problems…”

They are “not looking at legislation to force anyone to comply...it’s not the solution, to make it illegal…”

Why not? We do it with other immoral acts such as murder, rape, and theft. It works—better than anything else, despite what Brigitte Pellerin said in the interview. It’s a deterrent. In the end—and as much as possible—people are protected from the evil that others would do to them.

Was it the wrong approach taken by the US Supreme Court recently to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion? That decision made the current practice illegal.

This new group is confused and certainly not of one mind. It seems their greatest weakness is a failure to understand the role of law in forming public morality. This is a fatal flaw. Their approach might be likened to a campaign to educate men not to beat up their wives because it’s never a good choice and suggesting the focus ought not to be on stricter laws and law enforcement because these hold no solutions.

I don’t think anyone will seriously buy it.

If killing innocent, defenseless, children—at any stage of preborn life—is heinous and murderous, then it demands a law protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.

This is the starting point for any effective pro-life work.

It sounds as though this group aims for increased dialogue on the subject of abortion with the goal of convincing women that it’s always a bad choice. Perhaps that’s a positive thing but until they are ready to assert the most basic pro-life statement, I really wonder what they will be able to accomplish and I can’t think of them as pro-life.

Are they at least pro-woman then? Let the reader judge...

50% of all aborted children are women. Their lives MUST be protected by law—as well as the other 50%.

This group needs to be unambiguous in stating this.


Labels: , ,

Monday, January 14, 2008

Bodies of Cpl Maria Lauterbach and Unborn Child Found Burned and Buried

This is an unfolding—and very big—news story from Onslow County, North Carolina. It’s tragic and horrible. The young woman was in her eight month of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, North Carolina is one of 15 states without a fetal homicide law so no crime is likely to be registered against the unborn child.

$25K offered for suspect in Marine death

Cpl. Cesar A. Laurean has been charged in the first-degree murder of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who was more than eight months pregnant and had accused her alleged killer of rape.

What are believed to be the burned remains of Lauterbach and her unborn child were taken to the state medical examiner’s office in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Monday morning.

All 2,993 news articles »

Canada currently has no fetal homicide laws but has an up-coming vote on the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill (C484).


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Abortion Advocate/Lawyer Discusses Justifiable Homicide of Abortionists

Unusually perceptive look by a “poor-choice” advocate—and magna cum laude lawyer—at the subject of abortion related violence, especially attacks on abortionists.

Sherry Colb, a FindLaw columnist and law professor, has an interesting ability to see reality from her opponent’s point of view. She’s very smart and engaging.

Many of us reject the view that an embryo should, or does, have the same status as a baby. However, the pro-life movement unquestioningly embraces the position that it does. Many of us also believe that killing a separate baby is morally distinct from removing a baby from inside one's body - even though death results in both cases. But the pro-life movement rejects this distinction as well, arguing that the dependence of a fetus on a pregnant woman is no different from the dependence of an infant on the assistance of a caring adult.

Once one appreciates that the pro-life movement views the practice of abortion in the way that you might view the infanticide center described above, the moral appeal of violent resistance, from the point of view of some within the pro-life movement, becomes quite comprehensible.

Full article here.

I read another interesting article by Colb entitled The Invisible Woman. She has also written a book entitled When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law. There’s an interesting review of the book and Ms. Colb’s abortion advocacy here.

It’s unfortunate, even tragic, that such a gifted woman is corrupted by the illogic of poor-choice. It sounds to me as though her thinking is somewhat in the camp of Judith Jarvis Thomson whose sophisticated defense of abortion seems compelling but, as Scott Klusendorf points out, is nevertheless quite narrow and insufficient.


Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Feminist and Pro-Abort Activist Judy Rebick Reflects on Morgentaler at 20

The Court.ca sought out contributions from some of those involved in the landmark judgment twenty years ago in R. v. Morgentaler. Judy Rebick shared her delightful memories.

In Morgentaler at 20: An Activist reflects, Rebick describes how the ruling was received by the Canadian women’s movement.

I’ll never forget January 28, 1988, the day the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law. It was freezing cold. A group of pro-choice activists were standing in front of the Morgentaler clinic along with a mob of media waiting to hear the news from our comrades in Ottawa.

[snip]

A reporter called me aside and said she had just heard on her radio that the Supreme Court had struck down the law on the grounds that it interfered with women’s right to security of the person. I didn’t believe her.

[snip]

A decision based on the Charter guarantee of security of the person was too much to hope for. After all, the major argument of the pro-choice movement was that a woman had the right to control her own body.

[snip]

It was a profound and incredibly long-lasting victory that for us was of equal significance to the winning of the right to vote a couple of generations before. In essence, the highest court of the land said that the abortion law violated a woman’s right to control her own body free from state interference.

The entire post is here.


Labels: , ,

Monday, October 29, 2007

Great Britain Passes the 40 Year Mark for the Abortion Act—Killings Will Continue

I was alerted to this “reality-check” YouTube video through Blogger Mac McLernon in Great Britain who opens up a big window for us on the current debate in that country over abortion law reform. I touched upon this subject previously in the Vote Life, Canada! blog.

In her posting she describes an online petition which called for the UK government to reduce the time limit for abortions and she signed the petition herself but had serious reservations in doing so.

She points readers to a posting by Fr John Boyle who blogs at “South Ashford Priest.” Fr. Boyle reported that he wouldn't sign the petition, even though the petition is very much in line with last week’s statement from Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. In fact Fr. Boyle is directly opposed to the Cardinal’s stance. Blogger Mac now says the more she thinks about it, the more she agrees with Fr. Boyle and now she regrets signing the petition.

She also reports that Damian Thompson has weighed in at The Telegraph with his views. Thompson describes two polarities in the pro-life movement in Great Britain, much the same as what exists wherever people fight the evil of abortion.

On one side stand the incrementalists or “realists” such as Thompson and Cardinal Murphy O’Connor in Great Britain, the Family Research Council in the US or Campaign Life Coalition in Canada. On the other side stands the “purists” or “hard-liners” such as the SPUC in Great Britain or the American Life League in the US. There’s much debate over which is the most effective—or even morally correct—strategy. In my mind it’s largely a matter of strategy versus principle.

But that could easily be the subject of another posting.

In any case, read through Mac’s posting and Father Boyle’s blog as well. It will certainly expand your perspective on many fronts.


Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Michael Coren Tells Canada We're Ignoring the Most Important Right of All





Yesterday, one of the National Post writers had the courage to say what really needs to be changed in Canada. Michael Coren spoke out very clearly.




Ignoring the most important right of all

In an ongoing series, National Post writers are being asked a simple question: If you had the power to change a single thing about Canada, what would it be? In today's installment, Michael Coren argues that Canada's lack of an abortion law is a national disgrace.

It is tragically ironic that the most vital and profound issue facing this country is considered by many of its citizens and most of its establishment to be at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous digression championed by zealots. The issue is, of course, abortion. And Canada is almost unique in the civilized world in having no abortion law at all. In other words, any unborn child can be aborted and in most of the country the taxpayer will finance the procedure.

Can we, however, genuinely regard ourselves as part of a "civilized world" if we treat our most vulnerable with such indifference? What is supposed to be the safest place for a human being -- the womb -- has been transformed into a slaughterhouse for humanity, with more than 100,000 abortions in Canada each year.

The biting hypocrisy of Canada's attitude toward the unborn was demonstrated particularly clearly last week when it emerged that a Winnipeg woman had been murdered in February for refusing to have an abortion. Even though the general and natural response was to regard this crime as being especially repugnant, and as the taking of two lives, her killer cannot be charged with double homicide. Instead of simply intellectualizing the instinctive and accepting the self-evident truth of unborn life, we twist and turn to deny what we know to be true.

If, for example, an obviously pregnant women sat in a bar smoking heavily and drinking profusely, the reaction would be one of disgust. If the same woman told friends that she wanted an abortion, the reaction would often be entirely supportive.

The inconsistency applies equally with dis-ability-based abortion. Our country boasts that it cares deeply for the handicapped, yet provides publicly funded testing so that handicapped children can be aborted. The gene for Downs Syndrome was discovered by a man who thought it would help us to prepare for Downs babies and improve their lives.

Instead, it's being used to commit a form of pre-birth genocide on some of the most innocent, loving and beautiful people on Earth. Leave your car in a handicapped parking spot and you'll be fined. Abort your handicapped child and you'll receive government financing.

Some of the contradictions around the subject are acutely political. The Canadian feminist movement has campaigned obsessively for abortion rights but now finds itself in a quandary because so many female unborn babies are being selectively aborted in the developing world.

We swim against the tide of natural law and pretend that life is not life and killing not killing. With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed.

But we still know that it's not tissue, it's not a fetus, it's not an accident and it's not unwanted. Most of all, it's not about "choice." The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.

The fact that it is dependant on its mother while in the womb is irrelevant. A newborn baby is also dependant on an adult to feed it and keep it alive. So for that matter are the seriously ill and the aged.

We have allowed the cult of the self to blind our vision of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Choice has become taste, sexual love has become appetite, people have become disposable. Unless we allow the weakest to be born we are denying what underpins the very compassion, fairness and progress we claim to admire. Some rights are more important than others and none is more sacred than the right to life.

[Source]


Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Campaign Life Coalition Calls on Prime Minister Harper to Address Concerns of Sesen Family and Unborn Victims of Violence Bill

Issued today by Campaign Life Coalition.


Conservative Government Urged to Recognize Unborn Victims of Violence

MEDIA ADVISORY, Oct. 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- Media reports indicate that the family of Toronto homicide victim, Aysun Sesen, are asking for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to appeal for Sesen's daughter, who was killed in utero in her seventh month, to be declared a human being. They are calling for changes to the laws that prevent her boyfriend Turan Cocelli from being charged with two murders.

"We support the family's reasonable request for their grandchild to be recognized as the second victim in this murder," said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition. "Coincidentally, today in Alberta, closing arguments are being heard in the trial of Jared Baker who is accused of murdering his pregnant girlfriend, Olivia Talbot and her unborn child in 2005. This case prompted Conservative MP Leon Benoit to bring forward a private members bill on the unborn victims of violence. If this bill had passed the murder of both of these babies would be recognized," he continued.

"It appeared from media reports in the Sesen case that the father directed his aim at the mother's abdomen and in the Talbot case, Baker testified that he shot Olivia five times including deliberately at her stomach 'to get the baby'," said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. "How much more evidence is necessary for the courts, the Prime Minister and the general public to recognize two victims in both of these crimes?"

Campaign Life Coalition calls on the Prime Minister to hear the request from the Sesen family and to re- evaluate the hasty removal of the unborn victims of violence bill.

Media contacts:
Mary Ellen Douglas, CLC National Organizer, Kingston, ON 613-389-4472
Marie Christine Houle, CLC Toronto Office 416-204- 9749


[Source]

**********

Background on Canada’s Unborn Victims of Violence Bill can be found below:

Murder of Pregnant Woman in Toronto Ignites Debate on Recognition of Life of Unborn

Murder renews fetus debate

Killings reopen debate on rights of fetuses

The Inside Story on the Kibosh of the Canadian Unborn Victims of Violence Bill

Canada Unborn Victims of Violence Bill to be Resurrected in Coming Months Says MP

[image above of Olivia Talbot and Lane, her unborn child]


Labels: ,

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Yes, Some Teenage Women Are Mass Murderers

Pro-lifers are often heard saying that no woman ever sets out [when engaging in sexual relations] to have an abortion. In comparing abortion to embryonic stem cell research, I've said the same thing myself.

But this story from Great Britain pushes that line to the limit.

Using a non-legal [by Canadian standards] definition of murder, and acknowledging the God-given directive, abortion is murder whether the mother is fully informed or not. Of course a person's intent and circumstances play a part, as they do in all murders, but nevertheless whenever an abortion is performed, an innocent human being is violently killed.

If a society permits one individual to murder without consequences, why should it bother to highlight the actions of a mass murderer? Why should it even be newsworthy?

After all, if one abortion is ok, why not six...or even ten?

Unless something is desperately askew?

**********


The girl of 18 who has had SIX abortions


By DANIEL MARTIN

Last updated at 10:04am on 6th August 2007

As many as one in 22 teenage girls in some parts of the country had an abortion last year, according to official figures.

In total, a record 18,619 under-18s had terminations - despite a multimillion-pound Government campaign to bring down the numbers.

One 18-year-old had her sixth abortion in 2006. Another 135 girls under 14 terminated their pregnancies.

.....


Labels: , ,

Jail Time For Women Who Commit Abortions?

It all started on YouTube—a video project on the Libertyville Abortion demonstration where pro-life protesters seemed unable to provide the answer to the cameraman’s question: Were abortion to be illegal in the future, what sentence should be given for women who abort?

Anna Quindlen subsequently stepped into the picture with her Newsweek commentary, “How Much Jail Time?”

Anna’s comments prompted a response from leaders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, the nation's largest network of women and men harmed by abortion.

This may seem like just another spat in the endless controversy over legalized child-murder in the US (and Canada.) However, some very important points are raised in this particular incident and those concerned about making gains in defending unborn children are well advised to explore this story and bolster their pro-life expertise for the next opportunity which presents itself. This is crucial strategy for waging successful war against the culture of death.

So, returning to the story at hand, should pro-lifers squirm at the question of punishment for the mother who would abort?

Not at all.

National Review came up with a series of excellent responses by pro-life experts.

Use these as tools to sharpen your truth-telling skills. As always, the truth is our best defense as well as our best offense. And Jesus Christ, Truth Incarnate, declared to all mankind the path to true freedom: “…the truth shall set you free.”


Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Miracle Newborn, Dropped Into Pit By Mother, Survives 28-Foot Drop

Christela [“Christ was there” in Creole] Belle was an unwanted newborn, dropped down an outhouse toilet pit in Haiti by her teenage mother on July 8.

But indeed, Christ was there, and miraculously the infant “survived the dramatic fall without a bruise or scratch.”

The Christian Post carries the account below.

**********

Miracle Newborn Survives 28-Foot Drop

The Hands and Feet Project – a children’s village in Haiti formed by Christian rock group Audio Adrenaline – is happy to announce that they are now nurturing a 19-day-old baby girl who survived a 28-foot drop down an outhouse toilet.

The unwanted child was born on July 8 in Cyvadier (Jacmel), Haiti, and survived the dramatic fall without a bruise or scratch.

Her heroic rescue has brought together the villagers and workers in the area who can describe the situation only as a miracle.

“I knew this child would be fine,” explained Darry “DJ” Williams, an American U.N. soldier who aided in the rescue, in a statement. “After being dropped 30-feet into a pit and left for dead, and there were no bruises, no signs of trauma, and she was resting? I knew I had witnessed a miracle. Everyone involved knew it.”

A teenage boy named Toussaint was the first to respond after he noticed a big difference with the baby’s mother.

Toussaint knew that the mother had tried to deny being pregnant during her term, and when he saw her one day return from the bathroom with blood on her legs and a smaller stomach, he followed the trail of blood back to the outhouse.

After hearing the cry from within the outhouse toilet, he immediately contacted police and attempted to pull the baby out through a lasso he had made and when that failed, started chipping at the newly made toilet.

“Toussaint told me that the mother had dropped the newborn in the pit because she didn’t want it,” said Williams in a statement. “I could see that the baby was moving and knew that time was of the essence.”

Williams quickly notified the Sri Lankan army (that was acting on behalf of the United Nations), which then responded by quickly dismantling a toilet two stalls down. They then lowered a soldier who brought up the baby wrapped in a towel.

After rushing to a nearby hospital that was poorly staffed, they contacted a friend of Williams that worked for the Hands and Feet Project, Drex Stuart, who took the baby to their private hospital.

The group is covering the entire medical expenses and after an inspection, doctors announced that the baby was doing just fine.

“I am so amazed by the story of these rescuers,” said Mark Stuart, Drex Stuart’s son and lead singer for Audio Adrenaline, in a statement. “In Haiti, children are often abandoned and orphaned, and to see the teamwork between the police and the U.N. soldiers on behalf of this one baby, it is a would-be tragedy turned to joy.”

The Justice of the Peace has now officially granted full rights to the baby to the Hands and Feet Project. A policeman from the station gave the child her first name, Christela, translated to mean “Christ was there” in Creole. Her last name, Belle, takes its roots from one of Audio Adrenaline’s songs “Beautiful.”

“Christela is definitely a miracle child and was God’s chosen vessel to bridge the gap between the U.N., police and the community,” added Williams. “I am honored to have been a witness to this miracle. I am also humbled to have been asked by Drex to be her godfather.”

The Hands and Feet Project was first created in 2004 by the Grammy-award winning band with the goal to help unwanted orphaned children in Haiti. They currently have about 20 children with ages ranging from 15 days to 9 years, and hope to provide shelter, education, food, and a Christian upbringing to them.

“Without programs like the Hands and Feet Project, many children like Christela would have little hope at all,” concluded Mark Stuart. “Not only was this project on hand to help Christela in the early moments of her life, but it will be there for her and other orphaned children in the days and years ahead. We are hoping to help raise a generation in Haiti that will change their country so we can be out of a job and orphanages can be empty.”

Christela’s mother is a juvenile who had been kicked out of her home after her parents found out she was pregnant. She was sentenced to jail by a judge, but is doing fine medically.

“Keep praying that we will be here and ready to take children that no one wants or can take care of!” added Drex Stuart. “Don’t forget to pray for the mother, too.”

**********

Saving Christela was said to be a decisive act, a brave rescue, even a miracle.

But what would happen in Canada if rescuers wanted to save tiny unwanted children about to be discarded and thrown into a waste bin or suctioned out of the mother with “medical” apparatus?

They would be arrested and put in jail for trespassing on abortion mill property.

You see, in Canada, if an abortionist is the one who does the discarding, the law fully protects the abortionist—and the mother—from prosecution.

Fortunately for Christela,

  1. her mother carried her full term
  2. her mother wasn’t a Canadian

Had her mother been a Canadian, the child might never have been given a name, least of all the name “Christela.”

Isn't it time to change the law in Canada?


Labels: ,

/body>