Here lies the impressive jump in logic common to pro-abortion “research”: studies are undertaken with foregone conclusions by researchers with a strong socio-political agenda.

Consider this statement from the Guttmacher Institute’s summary of their findings: “Age is the biggest risk factor for having had a prior abortion; the longer a woman has been alive, the longer she is at risk of unintended pregnancy.”

While presented as a telling finding, age is not, in fact, a risk factor the way it may be for something like heart disease, as arteries undergo physical changes with age that increase risk. One does not become more likely to get pregnant with age – in fact, after a point, the opposite is true. To suggest age is a risk factor in having multiple abortions is like saying age is a risk factor in having eaten more hamburgers: the longer you have been alive, the longer you’ve had to eat hamburgers.

Such a statement is utterly meaningless and should not qualify as research nor be a basis for any policy recommendations.

A recent article on LifeNews.com points out the paradox often heard from abortion advocates: they blame “racism and sexism for the high abortion rate in the black community but also advocate for more abortions for black women.”

So which is it? Minority groups want abortion destigmatized and accessible to all, yet no community wants to have higher abortion rates than other communities.

Why not?

There is a deep, visceral understanding that abortion is not the solution. Pro-life advocate Frederica Mathewes-Green said, “There is tremendous sadness, loneliness in the cry, A woman’s right to choose.’ A woman wants an abortion like a fox caught in a trap wants to chew off his own leg.” Even Hilary Clinton once said, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion.”

Women want better options. Studies telling them it’s ok to have an abortion aren’t helping solve the deeper problems leading to abortion. And they certainly aren’t helping them realize the very real life they are ending by choosing abortion.

We all know there’s a better way, a way that isn’t morally, ethically, and medically wrong. Let’s seize the opportunities we have to keep pointing to that better way, a way of life and love. This way holds hope that cannot be found in hollow and biased “research”.

For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.

Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.

The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.

I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.

DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.

We know that censorship is the new weapon of choice for those intent on preventing Canadians from knowing the truth about abortion. This decision is a huge victory for us and ensures that we can more effectively work to advance protections for pre-born children!

ARPA Canada, the parent organization of We Need a Law has put a lot of resources into this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons we went on the STOP CENSORSHIP tour earlier this year.

A quick recap:
In January 2012, the Government of Ontario amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by adding Section 65 (5.7) which reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” In 2015, together with Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down this censorship provision.

The case was heard on February 1, 2017 where the applicants asked Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse to rule that Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA was unconstitutional because it censored the residents of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, from having access to meaningful abortion related information.

From ARPA’s press release earlier today:
ARPA is very pleased that Justice Labrosse came to this conclusion. “This is a huge victory for freedom of expression,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “It’s historic. There has never been a decision granting access to information from the executive branch based on the freedom of expression provision of the Charter. All disclosure orders to date have been made on a statutory rather than constitutional basis. Abortion is a matter of public importance and the courts have long recognized this. Abortion is also a recognized political issue, and political expression is at the core of protected speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This decision strengthens democracy,” continued Schutten. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

The hard work of ARPA lawyers John Sikkema, André Schutten as well as outside counsel Albertos Polizogopoulos is to be commended! We also express deep appreciation for the perseverance and dedication of Ms. Maloney. Thanks Pat!

We are not sure how the Government of Ontario will respond to this decision. The court has given them a year to allow for the adoption of remedial legislation. Suffice to say, this case was about transparency and democracy. In our view, the actions of a democratic government and the money it spends should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.

But more importantly, this case is about justice. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Even if many wish to condone or even celebrate this, nobody can deny that a human life has been taken. The way to deal with this is not to censor all abortion-related information. Rather it is to allow the truth to be known, and then to engage in meaningful public discourse about how to address the over 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada every year. There must be documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion and regulations put in place to limit it.

We hope you will join us in remaining diligent in ensuring that the state cannot simply hide information they feel is not in their political interest to discuss.

Who’s asking for increased abortion access?

Apparently no one is actually asking for this increased access to abortion. In 2015, a review was conducted of health care in Alberta’s remote communities. When stakeholders in those communities were questioned, they made no mention of abortion access as a primary (or even secondary!) concern. Instead, they listed priorities such as better access to mental health practitioners, and specialists such as respiratory technologists.

Residents of rural and northern Alberta often travel lengthy distances for trauma care, cancer treatment and other necessary services. With limited funding available, these are the types of services we should be striving to increase access to. We cannot expect all services to be available in all areas across our vast country. A controversial, elective procedure such as abortion should never take priority.

No one is asking for abortion access to be a funding priority. Yet the NDP is trying to make it a priority, taking valuable time and money from things remote communities actually want and need. Pushing the agenda of a small minority at the expense of the greater good needs to be called out and stopped.

Call to Action

If you live in Alberta and don’t want to see increased abortion access in your province, please join us in taking action against Motion 514.

1. Contact your local representative. Call their office, or use our Simple Mail on Abortion Access in Alberta. This email can be personalised/changed as much as you like and sent off in less than 10 minutes! 
2. Sign this petition asking the Members of the Legislative Assembly to defeat this motion.

This motion is expected to come up for vote before the summer. Please take the time to make your voice heard!

In 2012 the Government of Ontario quietly slipped in an amendment to FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) that reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” This amendment was embedded in an omnibus bill – an omnibus bill is one that covers a large number of diverse and unrelated topics – and was never debated in the Legislature. It was only discovered after Pat Maloney, an Ottawa area pro-life blogger, had a Freedom of Information (FOI) request denied on the basis of the recently enacted amendment.

After careful consideration, and I emphasize ‘careful’ as we should never take it lightly when we file a lawsuit against the government, we made the decision to partner with Pat Maloney in requesting a judge to review the constitutionality of the amendment to FIPPA.

But why this fixation with statistics and freedom of information? This is a good question to ask; especially considering abortion is wrong no matter how many or for what reasons they occur.

We Need a Law is devoted to promoting grassroots political action. We know that for us to expect changes in public policy we will need to have strong enough public opinion. That is why we strive to give all citizens of Canada the tools they need to become politically engaged so they can be a voice for truth, justice, freedom, and human rights. But in order to do that properly, we need accurate information. Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

Statistics matter because, in addition to knowing how many pre-born children are aborted, they show how abortion really impacts women. How can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything that pertains to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically in the process?

The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows the answers to these questions and this presents an incredible challenge in proposing solutions. When the government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions, and advocacy organizations cannot carry out their missions.

If you live in Ontario and have not yet done so we ask that you take a few moments to send this email to your MPP. Ask them to repeal Section 65 (5.7) because censoring abortion data is no way to deal with an injustice that affects over 100,000 lives every year in Canada.

Schuyler’s comments come as Degrassi is set to air its third season. In it they will confront abortion, refugees, and “scary right-wing thinking.” In an episode called #IRegretNothing Lola Pacini, a 16-year old character on the show, will be featured having an abortion. Victoria Ahearn of the Canadian Press interviewed Schuyler who is quoted as saying, “We’re very much influenced by what’s going on in the world, there’s no question.” This would lead the reader to believe that the only reason they include such a “divisive topic” on their show is because of what’s going on in the world – as though 16-year old girls are publicly celebrating their abortions all the time – and they are only catching up.   Except that’s not really what’s going on. Amanda Arcuri who plays Lolo Pacini in the show told Ms. Ahearn that, “I’m happy that the writers gave me this opportunity to portray it [abortion] and help young girls.” Degrassi’s producers are clearly trying to destigmatize abortion and normalize it for teens.

In spite of Degrassi and the efforts of other abortion advocates to portray abortion as something to celebrate we can be sure that it will always remain divisive. This is not because of “right-wing, scary thinking” but rather, because of the scientific reality that abortion takes the life of a human being, and that abortion is contrary to the created order in which a mother’s natural instinct is to care for her young.

The pro-life response to Degrassi’s ploy is not to demonize the show or its characters but to continue displaying the humanity of the pre-born child and doing everything we can to build support for laws that protect them.

The assertion is made that unsafe abortion practices result in the deaths of approximately 50,000 women worldwide each year. UN experts recommend removing barriers, discrimination and any criminalization of abortion to remedy this problem.  “We cannot tolerate the severe violation of women’s human rights on the basis of their sex and biological differences,” said the experts.

But wait. I don’t mean to demean the 50,000 preventable deaths from unsafe abortions – preventable deaths are always sad and worth examining. In Canada alone, however, abortion numbers are estimated at 100,000 per year, as our flag display so vividly illustrated in Manitoba recently. In the United States, that number jumps to at least 700,000, if not closer to a million. 

That’s only two countries in this big wide world! If we assume half of those aborted babies are girls (and it’s likely actually more than half), we very quickly get to at least half a million women who are never given a chance at life.

Further, to claim that we cannot tolerate differences for women on the basis of their sex is to say we cannot tolerate the difference that defines them as women. Women are made with a biological gift, not a curse, and as long as we continue to treat abortion access as a necessity, we continue to further the illusion that pregnancy and childbearing are a curse of which the effects must be minimized.

To suggest that repealing anti-abortion laws will actually save the lives of women is misleading, inaccurate, or downright delusional.  Abortion never saves lives: abortion is, by definition, the taking of a life. The United Nations continues to push on a global scale the Western view of abortion as integral to success for women and, as such, they do nothing to improve any women’s lives in a meaningful way.

The virus is spreading quickly in parts of the world, and the World Health Organization estimates as many as 4 million people may become infected before they are able to get it under control.

However, to use this sad circumstance as an excuse to push abortion shows exactly what is wrong with abortion.  Abortion treats symptoms, not causes. It solves nothing, and allows real problems to continue unhindered. Abortion does not slow or stop the spread of a vicious disease, it adds to the carnage. 

By fighting for abortion at a time such as this, the abortion movement reveals it’s true nature.  One article goes so far as to call increased abortions the potential “silver lining” of the Zika virus, the side effect they all wanted to happen before the virus even took hold. To continue to suggest they fight for women, while capitalizing on a massive viral outbreak threatening maternal and infant health, is unconscionable. 

]]> https://test.weneedalaw.ca/2016/01/get-real-canadian-women-are-doing-just-fine/ Sun, 10 Jan 2016 01:03:43 +0000 http://wpsb2.dev.hearkenmedia.com/2016/01/09/get-real-canadian-women-are-doing-just-fine/ Why is it that certain special interest groups seek rights and privileges that the rest of us don’t dare to dream of? After the so-called “Abortion Access Now” group announced they were taking the government of Prince Edward Island to court in order to force it to provide immediate access to publicly funded abortion on the Island, Supriya Dwivedi wrote in the Ottawa Sun that “women in Canada face horrendously unequal treatment, wholly dependent on geography.” Apparently a 2-hour drive to Moncton for an elective procedure is “horrendously” intolerable.

The legal action by Abortion Access Now, and the frenzied support of Ms. Dwivedi, shows that some Canadians are completely out of touch with the majority who understand and accept that, even with a top-notch health care system, not every single medical procedure will be available in every single area of the country.

Here is why I was quite properly annoyed by this outlandish demand. Three days into our annual winter vacation, my husband and I were sitting in an emergency room of a remote hospital in northern British Columbia waiting for a nurse to call a doctor out of bed to come look at our son. He was lying on a gurney, writhing in pain, while we waited anxiously for medical help.

After a series of tests, it was determined that he had a ruptured appendix and the infectious contents had abscessed in his lower abdomen. The doctor informed us that he required immediate surgery and, because there was no surgical team nearby, they had to fly him 684 kilometers to BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver.

As we waited to be flown to Vancouver for life-saving treatment, the air ambulance was delayed because a patient with a head injury from Kamloops also required emergency evacuation, as they didn’t have a neurosurgeon available in that city. In two small British Columbia cities, holidays were cut short by medical emergencies requiring significant travel for necessary treatment. We waited our turn.

When I eventually arrived home from the hospital and found out that this group of PEI activists felt they were entitled to expanded access to abortion I was rightfully upset. In fact, I am tired of abortion advocates demanding all Canadians support their fabricated right to an abortion. The Morgentaler decision, which Ms. Dwivedi refers to throughout her diatribe, did not give women a right to abortion. The reality is that the Supreme Court judges recommended that Parliament take steps to protect the rights of pre-born children at some stage of pregnancy. That was twenty-eight years ago. It’s about time we did something about it.  

There is no consensus among physicians’ groups that abortion is medically necessary. Yet, every Canadian province funds it, including PEI ­(the service is just not available on the island itself). In the face of truly necessary medical services, feminists have nothing to complain about. To quote Sarah MacDonald, provincial pro-life coordinator in PEI, “There is a great need in our province for medically necessary services, such as trauma care, cancer treatment, surgical care and more. Why aren’t these activists suing the government to increase access to these services?”

Our family’s vacation was cut short by a medical emergency requiring an unscheduled flight in an air ambulance to a distant hospital for immediate medical attention. We are not bitter, and we certainly aren’t demanding that surgical teams be established throughout northern B.C. for our convenience. Universal health care is a pillar of Canadian society and we are thankful to live in a country that takes the health of its citizens seriously.

The majority of Canadians understand and accept that, for our top-notch health system to work for everyone, not every single medical procedure can be available in every single area of the country.

By Jennifer Schouten, a proud mom and Canadian who doesn’t need the government to provide everything for her.

A recent trending topic on Twitter goes by the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion. Women are sharing why, when, and how much better their lives are now, because they literally got away with murder.  What started with two women and a shared Facebook post has led many, many more to declare themselves proud of their decision to have an abortion. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, calls these women “brave”, no doubt happy to have attention directed momentarily away from the selling-baby-parts revelations rocking her organization.