Will we ever succeed? Would it not be better to simply acknowledge that any effort to implement legislative change is futile? Maybe we should just focus on sharing the gospel and effect change that way.  The temptation to simply concede the status quo may be strong, but it is wrong and contrary to a Biblical understanding of the purpose of government. God restrains the evil of abortion by various means, including the government. Government is sent “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).

The Bible is full of examples, both in the Old and New Testaments, of God’s people having influence on secular governments. Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Paul come to mind immediately. Regarding abortion and the Biblical teaching that all human beings are created in the image of God and have equal status before Him, perhaps it is easiest to point to Exodus 20 and the sixth commandment “You shall not kill”. The Scriptures are clear: the unjust killing of a human being is never met with the approval of a holy God. That said, the unjust killing of an innocent child is viewed with particular disdain. Consider Jeremiah 7: “The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord….They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire – something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.” The creator God could not even fathom such a thing! The killing of innocent children is something God detests and (in human terms) did not anticipate human beings were even capable of doing!

We know God hates abortion. And we also know that he has put governments in place to restrain this evil as best they can. So, what to do when that government fails to do its duty? Well, my friends, all is not lost! We have a calling to do what is right; to do nothing is not an option.

The federal election gives us another opportunity to advance pre-born human rights. In order to use this time as effectively as possible we are focusing on three legislative initiatives which would take Canada in a positive direction and protect the rights of children in the womb. In the past four years none of the parties represented in the House of Commons have championed pre-born human rights. Nevertheless they all possess some distinct characteristics when it comes to party policy regarding sex-selective abortion, late-term abortion, and pre-born victims of crime.

The freedom for individual MPs to vote their conscience is also an important consideration and we have included some important quotes from the five parties featured on this issue as well.

We encourage you to question the individual candidates in your riding on these specific issues. Below each section you will find suggested questions that can be asked through various mediums: when the candidate arrives at your door; at an all-candidates meeting; by email, phone, or even through social media. We know it’s not always easy to engage on topics such as abortion so we want to make it as easy as possible for you.

Questions associated with sex-selective abortion

• In Canada, killing a baby girl in the womb, simply because she’s a girl, is legal. In fact, a CBC investigation revealed this happens with disturbing regularity in this country. As an elected representative of this riding, what would you do to stop this practice?
• Do you think it’s right for someone to have an abortion based on gender? (If not…) What are you going to do to end sex-selective abortion?
• Examples for Twitter:
  • Hi @________. Curious, are you okay with abortion when it is only based on gender? #lifetour #elxn42
  • Hi @________. Do you support women’s rights for women of all ages? #defendgirls #lifetour #elxn42

Questions associated with late-term abortion

• Canada, along with North Korea and China, is one of only three countries with no protections for children in the womb at any stage of pregnancy. Do you support laws protecting pre-born children after 11 weeks gestation? 18 weeks? 24 weeks?
• On multiple occasions the courts in Canada have appealed to Parliament to enact abortion laws. This was most notable in the 1988 Morgentaler decision where the entire court recognized that fetal rights need protection at some point. Would you support a Parliamentary debate on when a child in the womb should have his or her rights protected?
• Do you think the government should fund abortions when a baby would be viable outside the womb?
• Examples for Twitter:
  • I think dismembering human beings is wrong. What do you think @______? #lifetour #elxn42
  • Discrimination based on age and size has no place in Canada. Do you support a late-term #abortion law? @_________ #elxn42 #lifetour

 Questions associated with pre-born victims of crime

• Last Christmas, Cassandra Kaake (pronounced Cake) and her daughter Molly were murdered in what appears to be a vicious home invasion. The attacker even set the house on fire when he left. Police have charged a man, but only with one count of murder. Molly was 30 weeks old, but still inside her mother. She had a room painted for her, grandparents and aunts and uncles eagerly awaiting her arrival. But the law refuses to recognize that Molly even existed. As an elected representative, would you support an unborn victims of crime law?
• Do you think the killer of a pregnant woman should have a harsher sentence than the killer of someone who isn’t pregnant?
• Examples for Twitter:
  • Hi @_______. If elected will you work to protect the choice to keep a pregnancy to term? #prebornvictimsofcrime #lifetour #elxn42 #mollymatters
  • When a pregnant woman is murdered should the perpetrator be charged for both deaths? @_________ #elxn42 #lifetour #mollymatters

As leader of the NDP Thomas Mulcair has essentially taken the same position as Justin Trudeau — he has promised to whip any vote affecting the legality of abortion — only he isn’t so outspokenly arrogant about it. The Prime Minister meanwhile is not innocent of taking a dictatorial approach to abortion either. Sure, he has not gone to the same lengths as Trudeau and Mulcair, but one only needs to ask Mark Warawa what happens when a member of parliament makes even a benign attempt at generating a discussion on pre-born human rights in the House of Common.

These three party leaders, indeed all our elected law makers, need to rethink abortion. Canada is only one of three countries in the world that does not afford any protections to children before birth. The reality that abortion can legally be committed for any reason (even the “systemic elimination of female fetuses” as the Post editors point out) makes it an injustice that is inexcusable for any party leader to ignore.

“This is definitely a victory,” said Mike Schouten, the director of WeNeedaLAW.ca. “We worked extremely hard, both inside and outside the convention, to ensure that delegates had the information they needed to make an informed decision.”

Volunteers inside the BMO Centre distributed over 3,000 leaflets during the three-day event and it clearly had an impact on the outcome of the vote. “Party members have now spoken and clearly they want their party to address gender selective abortions,” said Schouten.

See more PHOTOS of the rally

While delegates were voting inside, there were 130 women, men and children just outside the BMO Centre who braved the cold, snowy weather to rally in support of the resolution to condemn gender selective abortions. “This country has been known for representing equality, and that’s what we are here for today,” said Rosey Rosenke, one of the organizers for the rally.

“Countries around the world understand that protecting women’s rights begins in the womb and we are pleased that Canada’s governing party has now taken the first step in also recognizing this,” said Schouten. “The fact that we were able to ensure this policy was adopted is a clear sign that Canada’s pro-life movement is organized, competent and not to be taken for granted.”

Click here for news coverage

Prime Minister Harper has acknowledged that pro-lifers comprise a significant portion of his base and that they should work on changing “hearts and minds”. That the resolution from Langley passed so easily shows that hearts and minds have changed. “There is a gap between public opinion and public policy in regards to sex-selective abortion,” Schouten went on to say. “Hearts and minds have changed, and we look forward to the government enacting policy which reflects that.”

First there was the alleged interference with the rights of individual members in putting forward statements. If not for a favourable ruling by House Speaker Andrew Scheer, the potential was there to make the Prime Minister look as though he were a dictatorial ruler.

Then there was the controversy surrounding backbench MP Mark Warawa’s motion condemning gendercide and the political manoeuvring that prevented it from being brought to a vote.

And many will recall the harsh criticism Edmonton area MP Brent Rathgeber leveled against the party when he resigned from the Conservative caucus earlier this year after his private member’s bill calling for increased transparency was gutted at committee level.

All in all, the past couple of years have seen the Prime Minister putting much of his focus on simply keeping together the many facets of conservatism that make up the Conservative Party. Certainly, the Speech from the Throne is an excellent tool to change the channel in the eyes of the public, but at the end of this month Harper will have to be at his best when he has an even more important audience on the other side of his lectern – the grassroots supporters who collectively volunteer hundreds of thousands of hours to ensure success at the ballot box who will be gathering at the Conservative Party’s policy convention in Calgary.

Whether the Prime Minister is able to strengthen party resolve when they meet at the annual convention remains to be seen, but there is one resolution that has the potential to either be unifying or divisive – depending on how party leaders handle it. The Electoral District Association (EDA) of Langley, BC is proposing an amendment to Section K 70 (Women) which, if accepted, would see the phrase “The Conservative Party condemns discrimination against girls through gender selection” added to the existing statements in this section. That this modification is sponsored by the EDA represented by MP Mark Warawa is only natural; it was Mr. Warawa who put forward Motion 408 asking for the House of Commons to condemn sex-selective pregnancy discrimination.

As I have said before, the Prime Minister missed a glorious opportunity to build support within his caucus by his treatment of Mr. Warawa and Motion 408. This resolution presents an opportunity for Mr. Harper to reach out to the socially conservative wing of his party and send a clear message to all Canadians, and will only be controversial if the Prime Minister decides to make it so by opposing it.

A note sent out to Conservative Party supporters indicated that because the Sri Lankan government had “failed to uphold the Commonwealth’s core values of freedom, democracy, and respect for human dignity,” the Prime Minister would skip the meeting, and send a junior representative instead – Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights.

Canada has consistently called out leaders in jurisdictions around the world for human rights violations; and rightly so. The egregious offences being perpetrated against civilians in Sri Lanka following that country’s civil war are despicable. Indeed, the detailed stories you can read on the Human Rights Watch website are gut-wrenching – one account tells of how a 34 year old Tamil woman was raped repeatedly and burned with cigarettes by Sri Lankan soldiers until she was willing to confess to being a rebel.

Canadians would undoubtedly support the Prime Minister’s decision… if they knew about it. But the Commonwealth meeting is simply not on their radar, and the Prime Minister isn’t doing this to score political points. He is staying home simply because it is the right thing to do.

However, while the Prime Minister is a human rights leader internationally, the same can’t be said nationally.

A study published last year in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that prenatal sex determination tests were being performed in Canada so that the pre-born child could be terminated if it wasn’t the “right” gender.

A CBC undercover investigation found that ultrasound clinics were revealing the sex of the child in the womb and even had discussions with women who were planning abortions after learning the child was female.

Although Canada has no laws preventing this practice, countries around the world have woken up to the gender imbalance that has arisen from sex-selective abortion. In a 2009 study for the Center for Genetics and Society, Marcy Darnovsky found that 36 nations have enacted laws and policies to prohibit sex-selective abortions. These nations include the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, Vietnam, India and even China.

While Canada is lagging far behind, Canadians understand that protecting women’s rights begins in the womb. Polls consistently show that over 90% of the population supports a ban on sex-selective pregnancy termination. It’s time for the Prime Minister to act on the strong public opinion that exists. On October 11th Canada will be participating in the 2nd annual ‘International Day of the Girl Child’. Mr. Harper has an opportunity to strengthen the unity in Canada by working to protect women’s rights. Rights that are increasingly being violated before birth.

Published: Saturday, October 5, 2013

For the last two years Prime Minister Stephen Harper has arrived in New York just in time for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. And both times Harper has found something more important to do. This year, rather than address the General Assembly, the Prime Minister spent his time participating in a panel discussion on the UN’s maternal and child health initiative.

Harper’s interest here is natural. Since partnering with other G8 countries on the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Heath in 2010, Canada has committed over $200 million to help mothers and babies in the world’s developing countries. The Prime Minister reported this week that great strides are being made: “The world is making significant progress in improving the health of women and children in developing countries and reducing the unacceptable mortality rates faced by these vulnerable populations.” This success Harper said is because Canadian funding is going to pay for immunizations, basic health and community services designed to ease the dangers surrounding pregnancy and childbirth.

You would think most Canadians would embrace this charitable use of their tax dollars, but Canada’s commitment has not been without controversy.

Read the rest of the article here.

This week’s cabinet shuffle has received much attention from the politicos and pundits. Most of the buzz has been centred on the fact that there are eight new faces in the cabinet including four women (bringing the total number of women to 12). But one curious and under-reported fact is that of the 39 Cabinet members, 12 are on record as voting in favour of the last piece of pro-life legislation presented in the House of Commons.

What are we to make of this?

Only a few short months ago we were lead to believe that there was a rift between pro-life MPs and the Prime Minister; now he increases the pro-life vote on his front bench. It certainly isn’t for lack of talent among the 163 members of his party that he was forced to choose individuals he was not comfortable with. Some may be inclined to dismiss this fact as purely incidental. Granted, it would be difficult to ascertain the exact reason for giving an increase in responsibility to MPs who are clearly not of the same mind as their boss when it comes to a legal recognition of the pre-born child. Yet one thing is clear – being pro-life does not affect your credibility with the man who calls the shots. This is significant! Many have been duped into believing that a pro-life vote is detrimental to promotion within the Harper government. The latest cabinet appointments prove that belief to be entirely fallacious and, in fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true.

Consider St. Catherines MP Rick Dykstra. Many pro-lifers worked hard on Dykstra’s campaign based on statements he initially made indicating he would support measures to introduce and pass laws protecting pre-born human rights. His voting record (he voted against the recent Motion 312 as well as Bill C-510, a bill designed to criminalized coerced abortion known as Roxanne’s Law) is disturbing as it shows he felt political expediency was more important than staying true to his word. Clearly it hasn’t worked out well for him if his aspirations included a cabinet position. Not only was he left out of the recent cabinet shuffle; he is facing a serious backlash in his riding for his abandonment of pre-born children.

Whether the recent increase in pro-life support on the front benches was done intentionally or not remains to be seen. Canada’s pro-life movement certainly isn’t holding their collective breath waiting for Mr. Harper to unglue himself from his position of never re-opening the abortion debate. With that having been said, all members of his caucus need to be encouraged to do what is right. Those candidates who state openly during campaigns that they are pro-life but then consistently vote pro-choice should be held to account for their deceptive tactics by the pro-lifers who worked tirelessly to have them elected.