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: , ,

US March for Life and the Religion of Abortion

From Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International.....his latest Spirit & Life column.


The March for Life and the Religion of Abortion

It goes without saying that the annual March for Life is one of the most exciting and unifying events in the international movement to defend life. 100,000+ pro-lifers converged on our nation's capital this week, more than half of whom were under the age of 25, and declared that the slaughter of the innocents is never going to be accepted as a permanent institution in our nation. Abortion-promoters would be hard-pressed to show the world that they could sustain such a massive public movement in their favor for 35 straight years. I can only say, "Bravo!" to all the people - especially the kids - who made great sacrifices to join us in Washington this week.

It also goes without saying that the little tin gods in the media did their level best to ignore and obfuscate this colossal event. When the homosexual propaganda film star, Heath Ledger, died of a drug overdose two nights before the March, that provided the hedonistic media the perfect reason to wail and gnash their teeth for a prolonged period of time about their immoral agenda and derail coverage of the life event. I will pray for Mr. Ledger's immortal soul, but at the same time, his death is a study in contrasts with the March for Life. The Brokeback Mountain star was only 28 at the time of his demise. It was his massage therapist who discovered his body that morning. A thumbnail sketch of his adult life might look something like this: Hollywood glitter, money and status, cohabitating with a girlfriend, a child out of wedlock, an activist for an immoral lifestyle, drug overdose and then death at a very young age. It's a real tragedy, but the culture of hedonism and death was dramatically played against the culture of life and life in Washington DC that day.

Not to be outdone by the godless media, the Planned Parenthood in Schenectady, NY also staged its own drama of the absurd. They dedicated a new 18,000 square foot killing center that day and had three members of the abortion "clergy" come out and "bless" it! What I have always said about abortion as a demonic religion was on graphic display in NY as we were marching for life in DC. Two "ministers" came to do the blessing from a "reformed" church - their view of "reform" is obviously different than ours. The (male) reverend used the occasion to proudly announce a new doctrine to the three dozen devotees of sacred abortion: the right to privacy is endowed by God, he said. Now, we cannot even find the "right to privacy" in the US Constitution and yet this fellow makes a new religious right out of whole cloth. Don't ask the demonic religion for a good grounding in history or logic. The other abortion clergyman was a rabbi who blew the shofar as a way to show support for reproductive rights. Our friend Rabbi Yehuda Levin who blows the shofar most years at the March for Life will have a field day with that one.

The most absurd aspect of the blessing ceremony, however, was when the Rev. Larry Phillips of Schenectady's Emmanuel-Friedens Church led the congregation outside to lay hands on the brick and mortar and to declare that the killing center was "sacred ground." Ugh. The hierarchy (Planned Parenthood), the acolytes (clinic workers), the congregation (supporters) and the ministers were all at the abortion temple that day worshipping the god of abortion. And the demons were so pleased.

St. Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6 that our battle is not against flesh and blood. It is against the principalities and powers of this world of darkness. The darkness is spreading, but the Light of Christ shines forth in all those wonderful kids and their parents that showed the world that life will win in the end.

"The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it." (Jn 1:5)


[image source]


Pope: Scientific Progress Must be Truly Respectful of all Human Beings

This morning, from the Vatican:

Benedict XVI invited the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give particular attention to "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics". In this context, he indicated that the "Church's Magisterium certainly cannot and should not intervene on every scientific innovation. Rather, it has the task of reiterating the great values at stake, and providing the faithful, and all men and women of good will, with ethical-moral principals and guidelines for these new and important questions.

"The two fundamental criteria for moral discernment in this field", he added, "are: unconditional respect for the human being as a person, from conception to natural death; and respect for the origin of the transmission of human life through the acts of the spouses".

The Pope highlighted "new problems" associated with such questions as "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning". All these, he said, "clearly show how, with artificial insemination outside the body, the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken. When human beings in the weakest and most defenceless stage of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure 'biological matter', how can it be denied that they are no longer being treated as 'someone' but as 'something', thus placing the very concept of human dignity in doubt".

The Holy Father highlighted how "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences, which opens up previously unimagined therapeutic possibilities". At the same time, he pointed out that "she feels the need to enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings, who must be recognised as having individual dignity because they have been created in the image of God". In this context, he concluded by ensuring participants in the plenary assembly that study of such themes "will certainly contribute to promoting the formation of consciences of many of our brothers and sisters".


Labels: , ,

23 Yr. Old Lauren Richardson Being Starved to Death in Delaware

From the DefendLife blog:
Lauren Richardson, a 23-year old non-dying citizen of Delaware, is in grave danger of being dehydrated and starved to death by order of the state, against the wishes of her father.
Read the rest of the sad and shocking entry here.

This is so reminiscent of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. If there's anything you can do to help Lauren and her family (besides prayer), please do so asap.

Labels: ,

A Brief Look into Politically Correct Injustice

My latest community editorial for The Telegram appears in today’s edition of the paper.


Politically Correct Injustice

We all believe in justice, right? Everyone treated fairly and nobody left out, right?

"Justice" sounds simple but we all know it's not that simple. It starts with a caring heart and a watchful eye, to say the least. The rest of the justice formula demands serious thought, a lot of hard work and a process.

I propose today we focus on a little careful thought about what the word justice means. Dictionary aside, I'd say it means treating people according to the truth of who they are and what they've done.

Since I've included the "truth" word I'm obliged to include the "God" word because what is considered truth must always have a reference point outside our own personal—and human—subjective opinion. Otherwise we might fail at justice because of personal bias or human error. After all, who knows more about ketchup than Heinz and who knows more about man and his challenges than the Creator of man?

Not coincidentally, that's the way Western civilization has viewed the relationship of truth and justice for centuries. This approach has served to keep our society strong and safe. In fact, many famous jurists have acknowledged that the Ten Commandments comprise the foundation of common law and the free world's justice system.

Without a foremost respect for God's version of the truth we would not have been able to bring to justice those who massacred Jews in the name of 'superiority' and 'purity.' Their politically correct injustice served political ends but did not line up with the truth and therefore led to the worst kinds of crimes in society.

Similarly, the fight to lead the Blacks out of slavery was a justice movement founded on God's version of the truth about man. Slavery and racism in America were also examples of politically correct injustice where sadly even certain Christians tried to use the bible to justify their outrageous conduct.

Our society also has its own versions of politically correct injustice—always aimed at the other guy though and not ourselves. Consider the crisis in our healthcare system—including the spinoff "truth" crisis at Eastern Health—and also the scandal of pauper's wages for home/elder care workers. Both are fundamentally justice issues and not simply financial predicaments. Why? Because we have agreed as a community that our own personal convenience and prosperity takes precedence over providing to the most vulnerable and needy of our fellow human beings the same treatment we, and certainly God, would advocate for ourselves.

Similarly with poverty. But not simply the extremely narrow version espoused recently in St. John's by religious leaders aiming to abolish such injustice. Yours truly showed up with an opinion that since a child's right to life precedes the right to food and clothing these leaders ought to also be on record for abolishing the politically correct injustice of abortion. Within minutes, and before saying a word, I was immediately identified through a phony handshake, arrested and confined to a paddy wagon for the duration of the news conference. How's that for political correctness? No matter—a small price to pay for exposing the unpleasant truth.

And there's the rub. A society that closes its eyes to the truth will surely be blind to its politically correct injustices. Justice simply cannot be separated from the truth. It's no coincidence that the courtroom demands we "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so help me God."

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.


Labels: , , ,

Lent: One Week and Counting

Jeff Mirus of gives his readers one week’s notice for Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent.


Lent: One Week and Counting

I've said before that many of us don't realize we're not keeping Lent very well until about half-way through, or sometimes even long about Good Friday. So here's my call for an alliance of the weak and ineffectual: Let's do it right this year!

Ash Wednesday is just a week away. It is time now to gather a few materials together, schedule some additional periods of prayer, consider what special sacrifices you'll make, and plan some alms-giving. Here's a short list of items to help you get started:

Set the theme by reading Pope Benedict XVI's Message for Lent for 2008.

Work on practicing the presence of God. Here's a web site devoted to the methods of an acknowledged master, the famous 17th century Carmelite, Brother Lawrence: Practice God's Presence.

Think about using Lent to build virtue. Mark Lowery explains what this means in The Virtue-Driven Life.

Get ideas and resources for yourself and your family from our Lenten Workshop.

Hit the ground running on Ash Wednesday (includes the rules for fasting and abstinence).


Tuesday, January 29, 2008

De-Coding the Term “Pro-Life”

Rudyard Kipling declared that, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

In a timely posting, blogger Joe Healy of adds clarity to the term “pro-life.”


To Be or Not to Be Pro-Life?

With the ongoing election cycles, legislative sessions, and judicial nominations, many people are using the term "pro-life" to describe themselves and others. But have you stopped to think about what this term really means? I certainly hope so, for "what does the soul yearn for more ardently than the truth?" (St. Augustine); but if not, I will provide a brief reflection on what it means to be "pro-life."

It is clear that human personhood begins at conception. Philosophers and theologians have taught this for hundreds of years. Boethius wrote at the beginning of the 6th Century, "Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights." The human is the only material being to be a person; other persons are purely spiritual: angels and the Trinitarian God.

Modern science confirms that human life begins at the moment of conception. It is at this point that a new human creature exists, with its own unique human genetic code. If left alone to develop according to his or her nature, this new human creature will advance through all of the stages of prenatal development, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. This creature will be the same person throughout all of his or her phases of life and even beyond natural death into everlasting life.

At the moment of the conception of a human person the entire fabric of the universe is changed forever, as a new immortal soul is created by God and mysteriously united with a new human body. It happened when you were conceived, it happened when I was conceived, and it happened when each of the 50,000,000+ aborted Americans were conceived.

Now, back to the main point of this article. What does it mean to be "pro-life"? In a nutshell, it means that we acknowledge the truth that a human being is always a human person; that the human person has an inherent right to life throughout his or her entire life cycle; and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. It is really that simple. Anyone who claims to be pro-life but who denies any part of this definition is not being intellectually honest (and is arguably not pro-life). Who was it who said, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me?" (Mt 25:40).

Here are some common examples of people claiming to be pro-life, but who are in actuality deceiving themselves and others:

1. "I am personally pro-life, but I cannot impose my morality on others." This statement denies the fact that a human person has an inherent right to life and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. We impose our morality on others when we have laws against murder, child pornography, stealing, and so on. This is the main purpose of government - to ensure the security of its citizens. Since the unborn are people, it is the duty of the government to protect them. Any law that allows the killing of unborn people is inherently unjust. To refuse to protect the unborn from abortion is to be anti-life.

2. "Abortion should be illegal, except in the case of rape or incest (or whatever other exception someone wants to throw in)." This position denies the entire definition of what it means to be pro-life. The person who is conceived in rape or incest is still a human person and must be protected from an untimely, unnatural death. Personhood does not depend upon the moral fortitude of one's parents, so the fact that one's father committed a crime (rape, incest) against one's mother does not make the resultant person any less human. The person conceived in rape or incest still has an inherent right to life (just ask Rebecca Kiessling, Jenni Maas , or any of the other outspoken people who were conceived in rape or incest and given a chance at life!). To be for abortion exceptions is to be anti-life.

3. "Human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is justified because it will lead to life-saving cures." This position treats the human embryo as less than a person, when in fact it is a human person. It also subjects the human embryo to a radical utilitarianism where its life is regarded as less deserving of protection than another human life, when the only differences between the two are stage of development and physical location. Since stages of development and physical locations do not determine personhood, the human embryo must always be regarded as a person and not be subjected to life-ending experimentation. While we must always value the quality of life of the sick we must never use an illicit means to achieve those ends. To be pro-ESCR is to be anti-life.

4. "Euthanasia (or "mercy killing") is sometimes the best solution for the person who is sick, his or her family, and/or society in general." The person holding this position seeks to alter the definition of person to exclude those who are sick, elderly, or disabled. It is never right to take an innocent human life, not even if that person is in terrible pain and begging you to do so. It is up to us to let the natural processes take their course, while at the same time seeking healing and medical attention as appropriate. To deny someone food and water in order to hasten death is a gross offence against the human person. To allow for euthanasia is to be anti-life.

5. "I know that my candidate is not 100% pro-life, but he or she has the best chance of beating the 100% anti-life candidate in the general election, so I'm going to support him or her rather than the 100% pro-life candidate who is still in the running." This is a tempting position to take, but it is very wrong. Because of the faulty logic behind this position, abortion is still legal today. If the entire pro-life community would stand up for only truly pro-life candidates, the entire political landscape in America would change radically for the better in six years or less. We would have a 100% pro-life president, a large majority of pro-life Senators and Representatives in Congress, a large majority of pro-life legislators in our state and county governments, and pro-life governors and executives throughout America. With all of those pro-life leaders in place, our judiciary would become full of pro-life judges. Abortion-on-demand in America would end. If you don't think this is possible, look at what happened in Croatia, where the number of abortions decreased by 90% between 1989 and 2005. To be pro-life except when "political expediency" requires you to support the more anti-life of two candidates is to be anti-life.

To apply these principles to the current presidential race, it is obvious that all of the Democrat candidates are anti-life. They all favor keeping abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, and human cloning legal.

That leaves only the Republicans as pro-life possibilities:

Rudy Giuliani is anti-life, as he is in favor of keeping abortion, euthanasia, and ESCR legal;

Mitt Romney is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest, he is in favor of destroying at least some human embryos for research, and he does not oppose euthanasia;

John McCain is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest and favors the legal destruction of human embryos for ESCR;

Mike Huckabee is seemingly pro-life;

Ron Paul is seemingly pro-life;

Alan Keyes is seemingly pro-life.

Are you pro-life?

Further reading: Human Personhood Begins at Conception by Dr. Peter Kreeft.


Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

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

Press Release
January 17, 2008

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

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

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 and 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!



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 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.

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

3. Join the Facebook group "abortion. Have we gone too far?" (press release is posted here) & check out . 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,
Executive Director
National Campus Life Network
Phone: 416.483.7869

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: , , ,

Friday, January 18, 2008

Scandal-Racked Jesuits Exhorted by Pope to Return to Orthodoxy

Nothing has been more devastating to our current society over the past forty years or so than the rejection of divine truth regarding human sexuality. The Jesuits have had their ranks infiltrated seriously by various sexual perverts and a host of accompanying demons.

LifeSiteNews reports that last week,

Pope Benedict XVI has called on the ancient order which has been rocked by scandal to reaffirm their "total adhesion to Catholic doctrine" mentioning specifically the Church's teachings on "sexual morality".

This can only have a good effect on society as a whole as the Jesuit order responds in obedience to Benedict XVI and the Magisterium of the Church.

The once illustrious Jesuits, the great defenders of faith, have over the last 40 years been steeped in dissident controversy. Jesuit priests have featured prominently in the homosexual priest scandal and Jesuit universities have been hotbeds of dissent on Church teachings especially those on life and family.

The Pope’s entire address can be found here.

Labels: , ,

The State of the Canadian Church

Jim Coggins heads up a series at Canadian on the Canadian Church, drawing on the expertise of a variety of researchers and church leaders.

Latest edition now online

Part VI: Those pesky moral, social issues

Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V

This series warrants examination by pro-lifers as well as a summary and critique from the pro-life perspective.

Any takers?

Labels: ,

Joanne Byfield: Pro-Life Movement Has Made No Political Gains In Canada

For a worthwhile summary of the current state of the pro-life movement in Canada, check out this article

Byfield sees slow progress in battle against abortion
Voters need to speak out before change will take place, she says

Byfield has impressive pro-life credentials. She thinks the media are playing a huge role in our current impasse.

She said in Canada it is impossible to have a public discourse about the issue of publicly funded, unrestricted access to abortion because most of the members of the mainstream media are pro-choice and consider abortion a settled issue that is not "of interest to anyone because it's not of interest to them."

No surprise, like Tristan Emmanuel, she points a finger at Christian leaders.

"Our churches aren't doing enough. There is a fear, on the part of pastors, to speak about abortion because they know there are wounded men and women out there and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable."

Her solution?

Voters need to tell the politicians who come to their doors asking for votes, "We won't vote for you unless you do something to protect human life.

"Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point."

Joanne is certainly correct when she says that our politicians need to hear it from person to person, door to door. But how will that happen? Who can motivate citizens to take such action?

Good question. Consider this: Who controls the thinking and actions—the very morality—of our citizens? Who can have the greatest influence upon their lives?

If, generally speaking, Christians and pro-lifers do not agree that religious leaders fulfill that role almost exclusively, then I’m afraid I don’t know on what planet they are living. Granted, the “media” have very significant influence but they don’t shape the morality of the nation. They just talk to death the existing morality from their point of view. Nor do pro-lifers shape the thinking and actions of citizens to any significant extent. Isn’t that the point made by Joanne Byfield? Nor do politicians seem to be shaping the morality of our nation. Again, listen to Byfield.

Who then shapes morality?

Church leaders. The Church. And other religious leaders to a much lesser extent. The morality of Canada is essentially shaped actively or passively by our Christian leaders. The big question though for Christians and the pro-life movement as a whole is “Can we do anything about the failure of Christian leadership in Canada and thus change the moral direction of Canada?”

In the article It's Time For Pro-Lifers To Change Their Strategy In Canada Or The Toll On Babies Will Continue pro-life leaders are challenged to take their heads out of the sand and take a different approach to the defense of innocent unborn lives in Canada. The article deals more pointedly at the failure of Catholic Bishops but applies equally well to the failure of other Christian leaders. A prominent example of the fear which immobilizes pro-life leaders in Canada can be seen in this posting Are Pro-Life Leaders In Canada Afraid To Speak The Truth?

Joanne says

Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point.

No doubt everyone can participate at some level in the strategy to "get people to that point." But I would argue that the only people truly able to succeed in such a revolution of reforming voting habits is the clergy, through a reformation of the Canadian conscience. If we make Byfield's strategy our chief preoccupation, which seems to coincide with the general philosophy of action of pro-life leaders throughout Canada, we'll keep on spinning our wheels.

If anything at all can be done to halt the neo-paganism overtaking Canada, I believe that only when Christians/pro-lifers decide to take concentrated and united aim at a campaign of accountability for Canada’s clergy—the higher the ranks the better—the sooner we'll see citizens pressing political candidates door to door.

And not a minute before.

For those who claim pro-life leaders in Canada have tried such a strategy and found it impossible or impractical, I for one would like to see the evidence. Like Byfield, I see a trail of political and educational failure but where is the evidence of a national strategy to hold Christian leaders accountable for fulfilling their God ordained duties—and for their failures?

You say it can't be done? I say it's time to talk about it.

Labels: , , , ,

SLAPP Legal Strategy Changing Landscape of America’s Traditional Culture

Insightful article on the need to loudly protest when necessary in order to preserve in our society what we hold to be true and valuable.

Such are the new politics of whispering in the twenty-first century version of the culture wars. The values that were instrumental in forming the American culture have been ignored, forgotten, or—worse—forbidden in public debate. Through court rulings, bureaucratic pronouncements, and well-intentioned but unhelpful laws, secular values have allied with government authority to dismantle the ideals of a decent nation.


After World War II, an American journalist returned to Germany to live in a remote town in hopes of discovering why law-abiding citizens followed the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Milton Mayer interviewed ten average families, and in one of the more revealing sections of his book, They Thought They Were Free, he asked why the townspeople didn’t protest the abuses of the state. A policeman related the story of a local leader who was arrested in 1933 and “taken away” without being charged with anything. When Mayer asked why there was no outcry from citizens, the policeman told him that the people, by their silence, had given the government that right. There were “no open trials for enemies of the state,” he said. “They had forfeited their right to it.”

Read the rest of Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2008 Personally Opposed But Will Not Force Morality

I held some hope when I wrote my posting yesterday that the women at 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….

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 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, 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 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: , , ,

Tristan Emmanuel: Church Leaders Culpable

Tristan Emmanuel, who just returned from a great conference and Caribbean cruise, shares his disappointment in his No Apologies column today.

But there was also something sad about the event.

…I was struck time and time again, by how inept the leadership of the evangelical and conservative Catholic strains of Christianity have become when it comes to defending the faith.

…they are also not equipping their congregants for the daily battle of ideas in our culture.

He makes some very good and seldom-heard points, much along the lines of my recent posting Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant. I was surprised that Tristan seemed a little more than simply disappointed by the reality he describes, given his “culture wars” background.

If he believed in the one holy, apostolic—and visible—catholic Church, no doubt he would agree near-perfectly with the analysis I offered in my posting, i.e. the failure of Bishops in their role to teach, govern and sanctify is the primary and dominant cause of our current malaise.

Tristan is certainly right when he gives credit to the Church for being the chief force in promoting a free and just society. The vast majority of society, including Christians, cannot seem to apprehend—or believe—such a concept.

I have often thought that in an ideal world - where the church was doing its job - the "ECP Centre" shouldn't be necessary. After all, churches should be advocating for brothers and sisters who find themselves on the wrong end of the law simply because they have spoke truth. The price of political freedom is free speech that gives offence. After all, what can be more offensive than the gospel's call to unrepentant sinners - be they abortionists, homosexuals or philanderers?

As I noted similarly in my posting, shouldn’t the pastors—the defenders of Truth—of Christ’s Church be the very first ones to be hauled before such “human rights” Commissions for announcing offensive truths? Instead, they have left the defense of truth to the rare courageous layman, journalist, or common citizen.

In my mind, there’s also no doubt that when those individuals fail whom God has called and ordained to announce the Gospel and defend His Truth, He can as easily “raise up the stones” to serve as salt and light to the world, to testify to His Truth and to mobilize His people.

That seems to be what Tristan alludes to in his closing paragraph.

The fact that so few pastors are actually equipping their congregants with a consistent Christian world and life view that manifests itself in "salt and light" activity - or in advocating on behalf of those who are subject of hate-crime investigations - tells me there is room for this Canadian to start equipping the saints in America.

In a similar sense, that is precisely the nature of the work undertaken by Vote Life, Canada! but without losing sight of the fact that Church leaders themselves must be continually called to live up to their God ordained roles and to account for their failures. Until the rank and file Christian is so persuaded in this task, in my opinion, we can be only marginally successful in winning the war.

Labels: , , ,

Preborn Babies Are Like Unfinished Houses Says Abortionist Susan Wicklund

Does worldview make a difference to your outlook on science and morals, e.g. when a new organism comes into being and how it ought to be treated if it’s of the homo sapiens variety?

Read Jill Stanek’s posting on abortionist Susan Wicklund who is promoting her new book, This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, and see what you think.

Here’s a sample of what Jill says:

She admits in the book "of an abortion she performed for a rape victim, only to find out afterward that the fetus she terminated was conceived earlier than thought and would have been the much-loved child of the woman and her husband," according to

But nevermind the whoopsies, let's talk logic. To an interviewer's question, "What do you say when people tell you that 'abortion is murder'?" Wicklund appears to first say aborted babies don't look human, so it's not murder to abort them.

Read the full entry here.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Suspect in Killing of Maria Lauterbach, Marine Cpl. Laurean, Could Face Federal Unborn Victims Law

Just two days ago I blogged on the horrific news about Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach and her eight month unborn child. It seems I might have been wrong when I said

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.

LifeNews reported some welcome news today:

If he is found and convicted, the federal unborn victims law could come into play because Laurean and Lauterbach are members of the military. That's because North Carolina is one of just 15 states that don't offer legal protection for pregnant women and their unborn children.

The question of whether the federal law can come into play depends on whether Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson has jurisdiction in the case or if the military legal authorities are allowed to prosecute Laurean.

Children who are killed in this fashion deserve as much justice as their mothers. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act might just provide that in this case.

I look forward to the day when we have the moral fortitude in Canada to enact similar legislation.

Labels: ,

Is OK with Abortion Choice?

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

Referring to Andrea Mrozek, founding director of, 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 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.


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’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: , ,