Good News: Kansas may end death penalty to save money

Pro-life and fiscally responsible. I like it!

A Feminist Tells of Her Traumatic RU-486 Abortion

A while back I published excerpts from an anthology of essays challenging clichéd pro-abort ideology. The book is called Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice.

In this blogpost, I’d like to publish passages about a feminist’s traumatic experience with RU-486, from an essay entitled “Nasaan Ka Anak Ko? A Queer Filipina American Feminist’s Tale of Abortion and Self-Recovery”. (Nasaan Ka Anak Ko means “Where are you, my daughter?)

Patricia Justine Tumang is a bisexual Filipina who developed a relationship with a man in Kenya and got pregnant while she was studying abroad in that country. When she returned to the United States, she was already almost two months pregnant. Although she says she felt a connection with the child’s spirit (whom she named Jamila May), and her desire was to keep the baby, she experienced a great deal of pressure to abort, for two interconnected reasons.

First, she wanted to finish her degree in Cultural Studies (“with a path in Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonialism”) and establish a successful career. She could not see herself abandoning a middle class lifestyle to have a baby, live the life of a single mom and get her degree. Her immigrant parents had worked very hard to attain that socio-economic level, and her superficially Catholic mother did not want her throwing it all away. Which brings me to the second—and most important—reason why she felt pressure. Her mother wanted her to have the abortion. In effect, her mother wanted her to pursue the American Dream, and Patricia’s immigrant background weighed heavily on her—because that’s why people come to America, right? Her mother threatened to cut off all financial support if she had the baby.

There is a lot of other commentary in this essay about how America’s predominant racism also influenced her decision, and how the pro-choice movement is racist, etc, but I will leave that aside.

Here are some excerpts about her RU-486 abortion:

For the next couple of weeks, I endured a living nightmare. The first dosage of Mifeprex, a medication that blocks a hormone needed for a pregnancy to continue, was given to me in pill form at the clinic. When I got home, I inserted four tablets of Misoprostol vaginally. These two medications combined to terminate the pregnancy nonsurgically. Heavy bleeding for up to two weeks was expected.

I didn’t realize the horrible truth of that statement until I lay awake at night in fits of unbearable pain, bleeding through sanitary napkins by the hour. When I was in the bathroom one night, clumps of bloody tissue and embryonic remains fell into the toilet. I was overcome with tremors, my body shaking with a burst of heat resembling fever. My cheeks flushed as sweat bled into my hairline. Dragging my feet on the cold alabaster floor, I went back to bed and hid under the covers. Eyes open and bloodshot, knees to my chest, I felt tears sting my swollen cheeks. After hours of pure exhaustion, I finally fell asleep.

Returning to the clinic several days later for a scheduled follow-up, I learned that the gestational sac was still intact. I was given another dose of Mifeprex and Misoprostol. That night, I stared in horror as a clump of tissue the size of a baseball escaped from my body. I held this bloody mass in my hand, feeling the watery red liquid drip from my fingers. The tissue was soft and pliable. Poking at the flesh, I imagined the life that it embodied. The sac looked like a bleeding pig’s heart. For several months after, I was unable to look at blood without vomiting. (p.46)

(…)

If I had known how traumatic my experience with RU-486 would be, I would have opted for the surgical method. Not that it would have been less traumatic, but anything would have been better than the three weeks of horrendous bleeding I endured. My friends’ support helped me through the difficult moments, but those who had urged me to take the pill had known nothing about it. Those who had had surgical abortions just thought the pill would be easier by comparison. The doctor who had prescribed it to me told me that although she had never taken it, she had heard that the procedure was only slightly uncomfortable. I had no adequate aftercare or education about the side effects, except what was written in small print on the pamphlets I was given. My doctor had informed me that all the information I needed to know was right there. I felt so terrifyingly alone in the process. (p. 49-50).

(…)

Even for those who can afford to get an abortion, in my experience there has been a serious lack of education about procedures and proper emotional and physical aftercare. While some women have had positive experiences with RU-486, mine was not one of them. Almost a year after the abortion, the pain still visited me from time to time. For so long, I tried to deny that I had undergone a traumatic experience, and I entered a period of self-punishment. I pretended to be recovered, but the pain pushed itself outward. Regret and guilt caused severe anxiety attacks that left me breathless, convulsing, and faint. (p.51).

Eventually, she did enter therapy and spoke to a woman of colour (which is what she wanted) and opened up about her abortion. She reconciled with her mother, and continues to remember her daughter in “visions”.

Bibliographical notice:

Tumang, Patricia Justine.
“Nasaan Ka Anak Ko? A Queer Filipina American Feminist’s Tale of Abortion and Self-Recovery”
Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice
Krista Jacob, Ed.
Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006

So much for "choice"

From the 40 Days for Life Day 2 report:

At one point, a young woman came out for a cigarette and started chatting with the security guard. She mentioned that the staff take the brochures away from them as soon as they enter, claiming it’s for their own good, so as not to upset them. How patronizing! Imagine, the very people who have everything to gain if these women choose abortion are telling them what’s good for them or not. They are censoring what they can read while they’re waiting. So much for choice. Of course, I saw it first hand yesterday when one of the staffers took it out of the hands of a woman about to enter. She didn’t ask for her to hand it over, she just took it right out of her hands. I guess they don’t realize how overbearing they come across, so caught up in their ideology, afraid of someone getting any bit of information that doesn’t come from them.

I guess these abortion clinic people don't really believe in women's autonomy.

Science or theory?

From Oz Conservative:

Professor Kenny suggested that the spatial ability of men often made them better at tasks such as putting together module furniture or setting up VCRs and also made men more suited to certain careers such as cartography, engineering, surveying and IT.

Why is all this so politically significant? On the one hand, liberals will dislike the scientific findings. Liberals want us to be autonomous, self-defining individuals. Therefore, they want to believe that our sex, the fact of being born a man or a woman, can be made not to matter. For this reason, they usually prefer to explain sex distinctions between men and women as being artificial social constructs, set up for purposes of domination and oppression.

On the other hand, liberals like to think of themselves as being scientific types. They generally look down on those who don't accept a scientific world view.

POEM: Blockage

This poem was inspired by something that I saw at the 40 Days for Life Kick Off Rally in Ottawa. In front of the abortion clinic was a McDonald's van unloading its shipment for the restaurant next door. I thought that that image worked on so many levels.

Blockage



The help for which every woman begs.
And no more lethal than scrambled eggs.
Eggspress Lane. That’s what it said--
The McDonald’s van that kept the clinic
Hid. Disrobe. Cover up. Wait in line.
It’s confidential as there’s little time.
Billions served. Without question.
With only minor indigestion.
Undergone with a heavy heart but with no more
Trauma than a
Fart.

It’ll curb your hunger and it’s so nutritious.
Well sufficiently so. But there’s no dishes!
It’s no nine-course meal, but it’s no Chick Filet.

And you deserve a break today.

VIDEO: 40 Days for Life Ottawa Kick Off Rally-- John Pacheco Speaks

I'm trying to more video, but I'm having a heck of a time with my video import software-- so aggravating!

Enjoy.

Busy Day

Today is a busy day. The painters are coming and it's Ash Wednesday. I might not be around to blog.

Recommended reading-- David MacDonald's GayTestimony.com

God's Judgement on the Culture of Death

From Peter Kreeft's long but worthwhile article, How to Win the Culture War:

If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims then the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of orphans and widows, the Defender of the defenseless, is a man-made myth, a fairy tale.

But is not God forgiving?

He is, but the unrepentant refuse forgiveness. How can forgiveness be received by a moral relativist who denies that there is anything to forgive except a lack of self-esteem, nothing to judge but "judgmentalism?" How can a Pharisee or a pop psychologist be saved?

But is not God compassionate?

He is not compassionate to Moloch and Baal and Ashtaroth, and to Caananites who do their work, who "cause their children to walk through the fire." Perhaps your God is -- the God of your dreams, the God of your "religious preference" -- but not the God revealed in the Bible.

But is not the God of the Bible revealed most fully and finally in the New Testament rather than the Old? In sweet and gentle Jesus rather than wrathful and warlike Jehovah?

The opposition is heretical: the old Gnostic-Manichaean-Marcionite heresy, as immortal as the demons who inspired it. For "I and the Father are one." The opposition between nice Jesus and nasty Jehovah denies the very essence of Christianity: Christ's identity as the Son of God. Let's remember our theology and our biology: like Father, like Son.

But is not God a lover rather than a warrior?

No, God is a lover who is a warrior. The question fails to understand what love is -- what the love that God is, is. Love is at war with hate, betrayal, selfishness, and all love's enemies. Love fights. Ask any parent. Yuppie-love, like puppy-love, may be merely "compassion" (the fashionable word today), but father-love and mother-love are war.

In fact, every page of the Bible bristles with spears, from Genesis 3 through Revelation 20. The road from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained is soaked in blood. At the very center of the story is a cross, a symbol of conflict if there ever was one. The theme of spiritual warfare is never absent in scripture, and never absent in the life and writings of a single saint. But it is never present in the religious education of any of my "Catholic" students at Boston College. Whenever I speak of it, they are stunned and silent, as if they have suddenly entered another world. They have. They have gone past the warm fuzzies, the fur coats of psychology-disguised-as-religion, into a world where they meet Christ the King, not Christ the Kitten.

Welcome back from the moon, kids.

H/T: Free Canuckistan

The Abortion Ideology's Achilles Heel: Relativism

Julie Culshaw writes about a talk Jojo Ruba gave at an event sponsored by the Knights of Columbus in Halifax.

Jojo talked a lot about the pervasiveness of relativism in our society; if something is wrong for you, well that is just your opinion and you don't have the right to shove your view on me. Well, that is okay if we are talking about flavours of ice cream, but when we get to moral issues like life and death, relativism simply doesn't work. As Jojo pointed out, just telling someone they can't force their view on someone else is, in itself, forcing your view on someone else. Relativism is self-defeating, it isn't workable in reality. He related an incident in which Father Frank Pavone was talking and half a dozen pro-choice women were sitting in the front row. One of them said "you can't force your beliefs on me, what you think is wrong is wrong for you, but not for me". Father Pavone, without speaking, proceeded to pick up her purse and to take things out and put them in his pocket. The girl said "you can't do that, that is mine". To which Father Pavone replied "are you telling me it is wrong?"

Relativists get stuck at this point, because you simply cannot get anywhere if you insist there is no right and wrong, that it all depends on the individual. There are, in fact, definite rights and wrongs and no society can exist without moral guidelines.

People may say that morality is relative. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY with a conscience operates on that premise.

It is therefore a lie. Morality MUST BE universal, on the basis that all human beings are of the same nature and therefore operate the same way, need the same things and require the same rights and freedoms to have those things.

It's not rocket science.

That is why "choice" is inadequate. Because "choice" is invalid when it comes to moral issues. You do not have the choice to abuse, rob or kill people.

And you do not have the "choice" to treat those who ARE human as NON-human.

Which is what the abortion ideology does. It says: you have the right to consider some human beings as non-human beings.

In fact, it says that EVEN IF the unborn children are full person, the State has an obligation to treat them as non-persons, for the sake of keeping abortion legal.

Of course, this can open up a huge can of worms. What other human beings must be treated as non-human because it's more convenient for another more powerful group?

Moral relativism: it doesn't work. It will be the downfall of the "choice" ideology.

In Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, vote Jake Pothaar of the Family Coalition Party

On March 5th, an Ontario provincial by-election will be held in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.

This is a solidly conservative riding, where the last MPP, Laurie Scott won with 50% of the vote.

Many voters may feel discouraged about their choices. John Tory comes across as a Bay Street "I-like-my-tax-cuts" socially liberal Red Tory who isn't truly committed to natural rights and traditional values.

For those conservative-learning voters who are discouraged and want to vote for someone who better reflects their aspirations, I'd like to propose Jake Pothaar of the Family Coalition.

Jake has demonstrated his commitment to pro-life and social values through many of his own initiatives. Among his many accomplishments is founding and operating a group home for emotionally disturbed children (1977-1990). He also worked as a teacher, and his the Chairman of Circle of Friends Pregnancy Care Center. Presently he owns a construction business.

Clearly, he is a man of values and accomplishment. He truly deserves your vote. I hope you can give him your support on March 5th and send a message that Red Tories cannot take you for granted.

Lefty vs. lefty

In response to CUPE's decision to boycott Israeli universities, Warren Kinsella writes:

First, actively seek to decertify the union, as it has arguably violated its own charter and organized labour charters to which it is a signatory. Second, petition for the termination of collective agreements entered into between CUPE and post-secondary institutions, on the grounds that publicly-funded institutions are not permitted to have contractual relations with entities which actively discriminate.

Interesting. So Warren would deprive CUPE members of their contractual protection for this? Isn't he worried that university professors are going to, you know, work for slave wages?

But seriously, I have to give the guy some credit for opposing anti-semitism. Although, it's, for the most part, probably just words. I can't see CUPE being decertified.

Finally, bring human rights code complaints against them, in as many jurisdictions as possible, because that is the best and most logical forum to confront an outrage like this one.

Pass the popcorn.

Why not just sue them? Sid Ryan and the CUPE crowd have rights, too.

Now I'll be accussed of defending anti-semites. *Roll eyes*.

UPDATE: Just saw these two posts:

Jack of Hearts:

Boycott CUPE. Decertify. Them. All.

Small Dead Animals:

Tell me again, what does this have to do with the advancement of worker's rights in Canada?

The Shattered Illusions of an Abortion Fundamentalist

I enjoy reading what informed feminists have to say about abortion. Their words often seem to underscore what pro-lifers have to say about the issue. This is especially true of an anthology of essays called Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice. The point of these essays is to present ideas that challenge the cliché pro-abortion ideology. And in doing so, these feminists—all supportive of legal abortion-—evoke themes and echoes from the pro-life movement (although they might not admit it.)

In this blog post, I’d like to highlight some passages from Jenny Higgins’s autobiographical “Sex, Unintended Pregnancy, and Poverty” In her teens, Jenny Higgins was what one might possibly call an abortion fundamentalist. She says of herself:

“When I innocently approached the issue on this pure and abstract level, abortion was always an acceptable option, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy. Abortion seemed to serve as a symbolic embodiment of women’s autonomy, a harbinger of personal or social empowerment. That is, in exercising her right to choose, a woman was capitalizing on her personal freedom and power. As such, I associated abortion with positive, rights-based connotations, not with tinges of loss, poor decisions, or irresponsible behavior (e.g., not using contraception, even after numerous prior abortions), let alone larger social pathologies such as sexism, racism, or poverty.” (p.32)

At age nineteen, she began a five-year stint at two abortion clinics, doing a variety of jobs, from counselor to lab assistant. And in the process of doing her job, many of her illusions were shattered. Take for instance, the counseling sessions that women are supposed to be entitled to:

“Counseling sessions strictly time constrained, sometimes allowing only five minutes per patient. I had to rush women out of the procedure room within minutes—sometimes seconds—of their terminations so that we could quickly prep the room for the next patient. “ (p.34)

I have a hunch that one of the reasons why laws against consent and ultrasound are so opposed by feminists is that it would put a cramp in these five-minute counseling sessions.

Dealing with post-abortive women is no fun, either:

“In a second challenge to my previously held beliefs, clinic work forced me to face the reality of abortion as a real human calamity. It was hard to ignore abortion’s underbelly of loss when so many patients exhibited deep and, at times, almost bottomless sadness, distress, or anxiety. Even though these women were trying to make the best decision for themselves, such a certainty of choice couldn’t entirely remove the psychological injury. While the reality of this loss didn’t make me any less pro-choice, it did diminish the whole abortion-as-empowerment model I had held so dear.” (p. 34)

Psychological injury you say? How can something so good be so bad for the woman?

“Privacy, for example, was a rare luxury at the clinics, especially on high-traffic procedure days. On Saturdays, women waited in the hallways for hours in flimsy medical gowns, already counseled and medicated, but queued in a long line of patients waiting to see the doctor. Sometimes, even counseling was done in groups to save time, ten or fifteen women sitting in a circle, holding their consent forms as they listened to me speak. At other times, I was strictly limited to a five-minute counseling session for each patient. This is hardly sufficient time to ascertain a woman’s consent, inform her of what to expect during and after the procedure, and counsel about contraceptives so that she could better avoid future unintended pregnancies.” (p. 38)

Now you know why pro-lifers call them “abortion mills.” No other kind of medical treatment is administered in this fashion.

The sentence in the next paragraph is a real killer (pun intended!):

“Yet, as most of us who have worked in the abortion field know all too well, both the clinics’ clients and the staff have little choice [My emphasis]. […] We tried to accommodate as many women as we could, which often meant that ‘extras,’ such as extensive counseling or follow-up care, were out of the question.” (p.38)

Isn’t that nice. They short-shifted the individual patient in the name of an ideological goal of performing as many abortions as humanly possible. If I had been a patient, that would have made me feel warm and fuzzy.

Could you imagine what would happen if the Canadian medical system treated EVERY surgery that way? There are wait times for surgeries in Canada, but there is no “skipping” consent or other preparatory measures. I have had surgery and my daughter has had surgery, and there was no “five minute” counseling session. The medical personnel, as far as I know, made sure to give all the necessary details.

Why is abortion so special that it has to evade these proper medical procedures?

And what is this garbage about people “not having a choice”? Of course you have a choice. You can choose a different course of action—the fact that you do not want that course of action does not mean it is not a choice.

In essence, the clinic CHOSE to operate that way. They had a choice. They could have offered standard care. They just refuse to make the effort to do so.

“I was disillusioned by the general dilapidation of the clinic, the dated medical equipment, the revolving door of staff, and other indications of clinical setting with inadequate resources.”(p.34)

They simply do not want to fund their own clinic. That is what medical fees are for. If poverty is the issue, why don’t they put on a fundraiser? Oh wait, that would mean not depending on tax money. That’s anathema. And it also takes away an excuse for the crappy treatment.

Pro-lifers try to pass laws to get abortion clinics to adhere to certain medical standards because they do tend to be relatively unsanitary. But feminists oppose these, too.

Higgins goes on to attribute this inequitable situation to the women’s circumstances. They are poorer, they are burdened with the job of pregnancy prevention (which she thinks men tend to shirk). Their use of contraception is poorer because as they do not have the same education and job prospects, they do not have the same motivation to avoid pregnancy.

It sounds like it’s not a personal responsibility issue. Which is just bunk to me. Just because you’re poor, uneducated and have no prospect of advancement doesn’t mean you can’t be responsible or have common sense.

She goes on to comment about the "tough cases"-- of women who had their third, fourth or fifth abortion, or who waited until the second trimester until they terminated.

I felt they made the pro-choice platform even more vulnerable to critics. That is, a political safe haven for choice remained all the more elusive when abortion was requested late in the pregnancy and/or multiple times in a woman's lifetime. I'm a bit hesitant to admit that the tough cases took a personal toll as well. They tarnished my innocently romanticized version of abortion as a difficult but worthy, and even admirable, decision. I was angry to feel alienated from the uncomplicated feminist principles which had been so essential and inspiring to me just years earlier." (p.35)

So how did she deal with these "tough cases". She intellectualized. Like many a good liberal. She looked at the big picture. These "tough cases" were the product of social constraints. Social constraints, in the liberal mind, always trump personal responsibility. And the number one constraint is, of course, gender equality. The woman is the victim. She is the one who is primarily responsible for pregnancy prevention. That's just so unfair that she was born with a biological physique that she did not choose. It's so unfair that male sexual pleasure is more valued, so a woman feels compelled to service him without contraception-- never mind that she always has the choice of just bloody saying "no." And of course there is poverty. Rich women can afford good counselling for contraception and nice abortion clinics. Why feminists don't feel compelled to provide the poor with those same nice abortion clinics is interesting. Liberals raised tens of millions of dollars to put a Black Guy in the White House, but they can't raise tens of millions of dollars to upgrade abortion clinics which are supposedly so central to women's reproductive justice and personal autonomy. Isn't that interesting.

So it's all The Man's fault. That's how she deals with tough cases. Personal responsibility? That's just an illusion. Remember that.

There are many other revealing essays in this book. I strongly recommend it. Read it, blog it, pass it on.


Bibliographical citation:

Higgins, Jenny.
“Sex, Unintended Pregnancy, and Poverty”
Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice
Krista Jacob, Ed.
Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006

Sorry about the silence

I've been busy with family commitments. I will try to come back soon. I'm very tired.

Feminists: Not dismissive of women at all...yeah right

It seems that the SOLAs at Dammit Janet were quite annoyed at my post stating that the real oppressors of women are those who say abortions did not hurt them.

Nothing makes me crazier than the preposterous claim from anti-feminists that feminists don't care about women.

Feminists care about their ideology. They care about about those segments of women that help their ideology. They do not care about those women who do not advance their ideology.

Forbye the facts that feminists pioneered voting rights, pay equity, quality childcare, abused women's shelters, rape crisis centres, etc., etc.

Except for perhaps pay equity (which I would not consider an accomplishment)--- how come they always have to go back at least twenty years to speak of feminism's accomplishments?

Sounds like feminism is becoming irrelevant. But I digress...

you know, actual rights and services for women, these misogynist maroons

See what I mean...I am a woman, but somehow, I am a misogynist. How can I hate my own gender? Are they certain I am a self-hating woman? Are all women who oppose feminism misogynists?

See. It's about ideology. Not actual women. In order to be a worthy woman, you must be either a feminist, or the object of a feminist's concern.

Well, you see, SHE is lying again.

Well, that's all fern hill can do. Talk about lying liars lying their lies because the only way to show a lying liar is lying their lies is to use the word "lie" a lot like a magic spell, and it will make it so.

Freak out, be really angry when you post, use SHRIEK a lot, employ bad satire, vulgar words, and you get your point across.

So they think.

It is true that the pro-choice movement was late to this party.

No kidding. Because admitting that abortion causes mental health issues would be extremely inconvenient now, wouldn't it? It was only because pro-lifers acknowledged and accepted without judgment the pain of these women that the feminists were forced to act for ideological purposes.

In fact, fern hill wonders:

Anybody know of Canadian initiatives in this area?

The concern for women is just overpowering. A plugged feminist like fern hill doesn't even know if post-abortion counselling is being done by feminists in Canada.

But the compassion doesn't stop there.

fern hill does not seem to think that the women who come forward with their stories are really worthy witnesses to begin with.

This infuriates me. The compulsory pregnancy gang are using frail, fucked-up women to advance their agenda.

They don't know what they're doing. They're "f*cked up!". These women's pain...it isn't really their pain...it's made up pain by the pro-life movement...

USING these women is unconscionable. And the incredible -- I don't know what it's called -- absurdity? of using and hurting and manipulating and guilting these women under the rubric that 'abortion hurts women'.

Not dismissive of these women's pain and recovery whatsoever....

And if there's any doubt that the Bread n Roses crowd does not believe in the legitimacy of these women's pain, check out this blogpost title from Birth Pangs:

Postnatal Depression, Unlike Post-abortion Depression, Is Real

Post-abortion trauma. It's an inconvenient truth. Women's experiences are supposed to be of paramount value to feminists, but when they're ideologically inconvenient, these women get pushed aside as insincere, screwed up, manipulated, and generally...

Untrustworthy.

In effect, lying liars lying their lies.

Filipino editor to fellow Muslims: get educated and show that Islam is a tolerant religion

This is what we need to hear:

MANILA: Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled A. Almaeena yesterday exhorted Filipino Muslims and other Muslims living as minorities in other countries “not to wallow in self-pity” and to strive for higher education instead of complaining of discrimination.

(...)

In his speech, Almaeena stressed that higher education “is a must for everyone because education brings about religious tolerance.” He said dialogue and religious tolerance are all the more important as “global understanding is a must for peace.”

(...)

He suggested people representing the Muslim world should really come out in the open and help show the true nature of Islam as a tolerant religion.

I know many people believe that Islam is an inherently intolerant religion.

Personally, I don't believe that any religion, other than mine, is inherently anything.

While it's true that the Koran and Muslim texts say some very intolerant things, I do not lose hope. The human mind is elastic, in a sense. It can find a way to reach a goal when it wants to. If Muslims want to be tolerant, they'll find a way to be tolerant, regardless of what a book says. They'll read it into the Koran, if they don't already.

Tell the CRTC: DO NOT REGULATE THE INTERNET, PERIOD!

The CRTC is having hearings today on the possibility of forcing internet service providers to provide Canadian content on-line.

As far as I'm concerned, this is outrageous.

There should be no CRTC regulation of the internet.

Period.

WRITE THE CRTC.

Now is the time to speak up VERY LOUDLY to make it known that you absolutely, positively oppose this measure.

Because once the CRTC regulates the internet, it's game over. We will go down that slippery slope.

Go here

Type in the relevant information. I know it's says "question", but the form is so dumb, it will not allow for comments about hearings.

Just type the "next" button and state your opinion.

I would say: short and sweet. Do not put a lot of detail. For instance, if you say "I don't want my tax dollars going towards this" they'll take it that you object on financial grounds-- but not on others.

Just say: do not regulate the internet. At all.

That's it.

Now please pass on this information.

Now type the message right now. It won't take you more than 30 seconds.

And then put it on your blog. We need to get this out to as many people as possible.

A criminal case study of abortion and infanticide on the Prairies

From a history article:

Clearly, then, the reality of criminal abortion and infanticide in the prairie west during this period was a sad and sordid one. There is no sign of women asserting control of their generative functions as a step towards liberation. Nor is there a sign of any underground network of informed women and sympathetic men which operated outside the law helping women to escape the unreasonable demands of a male-dominated society that they bear unwanted children. Instead, where the circumstances are known, the cases which came to the attention of the Mounted Police were of people ridding themselves of the products of irregular relationships. At that time the law and society did not accept that the penalty for a conception of inconvenience was death to the fetus or to the infant. The police and the judicial system were conscientious in pursuing the criminal acts of abortion and infanticide. There was, however, a moderating factor in the bent of this pursuit. This was a recognition in individual cases that the mother was often a victim as well as the child, a fact that was reflected in leniency of treatment. Although there were occasional expressions of outrage by the judges, the policemen or the public at particularly cruel acts of abortion or infanticide, there was no sense of a moral urge for a crusade against such abuse. This is, I believe, because abortions and infanticides were isolated acts, seen as all too human failures, admittedly more common as the white population grew, but uncommon enough not to be any threat to social order on the prairies.

Msgr. Alphonse de Valk on the evil of legal abortion

From a 1974 article:

Let me conclude by reminding you what the opponents of legalized abortion regard as the major evil: the introduction into our society of the principle of selective killing; the introduction and approval of the principle that the end justifies the means, that one may kill human life innocent of any crime in order to save the life of those already existing. This, they say, is the most important implication of legalizing abortion. If today, we permit the killing of those who are a burden because they are in an early stage of development and not yet born, then to-morrow, we will permit the killing of those who are a burden because they are in a late stage of life and no longer of any use.

I would also add, and this should be among the principle objections to abortion: that some human beings are equal, and some are not.

Some human beings have the legal protection of the law. And some do not.

Some human beings are worthy of consideration. And some are not.

Some human beings are worthy by virtue of being healthy (i.e. not deformed) and some are not.

We often framed abortion as a question of morality and the law.

It's not a morality issue, per se.

It's a human rights issue. All human beings are equal. All should be recognized and legally protected under the law.

Earliest live birth ever at 16 weeks...can anyone confirm?

Joseph Dellapenna writes in his Dispelling Myths of Abortion History on p. 591:

To date, the earliest reported birth where a child survived (and survived relatively unimpaired) is that of Kane Benoit who was born after 16 weeks gestation. The baby, whose twin sister died within hours of birth, weighed less than 500 grams. A reporter noted the despair that descended on his parents because of the enormous medical costs incurred in saving Kane.

I googled it to no avail. As the earliest birth I'd heard of a live birth is 21 weeks, I wondered about this.

I would have liked to have investigated the matter further, but I only had a limited amount of time to read this book at the library.

Abortion and its legality in pre-19th century history

It is often asserted that, under Common Law, abortion was legal before quickening by common liberty. Otherwise, it was not considered a serious offense.

According to Joseph Dellapenna in his Dispelling Myths of Abortion History, that assertion is incorrect.

Before the 19th century, Common Law did not have any statutes prohibiting such widely recognized crimes such as rape and murder. The Law was not written down so much as handed on through common understanding and precedent. The 19th century was the age of legal codification. All of the world’s developed countries developed country passed laws against abortion, including England and America.

It’s not that the absence of such statutes signaled the legality of abortion. It’s just that, as with other serious crimes, their prohibition was assumed through common legal precedent. It was assumed that abortion took the life of a human being, whether the child was quickened or not.

The question at the time was whether abortion consisted of a felony or a misdemeanor (or in 19th century language “misprision”). Due to a misreading by Sir Edward Coke, one of the most prominent voices in Common Law history, whose precedent was cited even if he was obviously wrong (as Dellapenna thinks he was in this situation), abortions were considered misdemeanors before quickening.

It’s not that abortion was not considered a serious crime before quickening. It had to do with the nature of the prosecution itself.

“At the time, to prove that an abortional act caused the death of a child, one would have to prove both that the child was alive when the act was committed and that the act rather than some supervening act or event caused the abortion. Given the primitive state of gestational and forensic knowledge, both proofs could often be problematic. The problem is hardly surprising. Forensic medicine remained extremely primitive even three centuries later. In 1601, no certain means of proving that a woman was even pregnant existed until the infant had ‘quickened,’ that is had begun to move so that the mother (and others) could feel this movement. A relatively certain clinical test for pregnancy did not emerge until 1927. Thus even the fact of pregnancy was virtually impossible to prove, unless the mother had aborted and she (or someone else) preserved the remains of the abortus or if the mother died and an autopsy were performed. Even experienced mothers were often uncertain [and I can attest to this!]. “

Since pregnancy before quickening was hard to establish, they were rarely if ever prosecuted. The lack of prosecution is one piece of evidence adduced to point to the supposed legality of abortion. But that wasn’t the case at all. It wasn’t that abortions were legal; it was that they were difficult to prosecute. And, being as they were so difficult to prosecute, it was feared that juries would not convict if the crime of abortion before quickening were considered a felony, seeing as the evidence could be uncertain. Thus it as considered a misdemeanor.

The other proof that Dellapenna shows that abortion was not a liberty before the 19th century is that until 1968, when law professor Cyril Means Jr. wrote of this liberty, no legal document had ever spoken of it. “The unanimous sense of the legal and the general community was that abortion was a crime because it involved the killing of a child—if one could prove that the child was alive at the time of the abortive act and died as a result.”

Abortion in History: Safe and Common?

It is said by feminists like Joyce Arthur that women have been having abortions for many millennia, and therefore men should refrain from interfering in this matter. The implicit message is that women have successfully performed abortions and know what they’re doing, therefore abortion laws are unnecessary.

Women knew what they were doing when it came to abortion (before its medicalization and suppression in the 19th century), and therefore they will continue to know what they are doing.

Legal historian Joseph Dellapenna debunks these notions in his book Dispeling the Myths of Abortion History, especially in his first chapter, "Only Women Bleed".

Dellapenna concedes that abortions have been performed in all periods of human history. But he says that the idea that abortion was commonly practiced has no basis in support. He cites the relative lack of prosecutions for the crime, even though infanticide was widespread (indicating that there were many unwanted pregnancies). Historians, such as James Mohr, have advanced this point have done so on the basis of assumption and flimsy evidence, not actual proof.

It has also been assumed that abortions before the 20th century were relatively safe and effective and that the knowledge used to procure them was a special “secretive knowledge” of women that escaped male-dominated channels.

To demonstrate that abortions were mostly dangerous, the author divides abortion techniques into three types—injurious, ingestive and intrusive. Injurious abortions were the most effective before the twentieth century. They involved beatings and other forms of physical assault on the woman. They could be effective but could hardly be safe for the woman.

The second kind—the most common--- were ingestive techniques involving herbs and other substances absorbed through the body either orally or, otherwise, as in the case of douches. These abortion methods rarely if ever had any effect on the uterus and were often toxic. If they did manage to produce an abortion, it was by inducing diarrhea, vomiting and general digestive upset, making it impossible to sustain the pregnancy. Needless to say, the efficacy of these methods were rather poor and often led to death from poisoning. Sometimes they were harmless and relied more on ritualistic magic rather than physical effect.

As a result of these methods, most women who made a serious attempt at aborting a pregnancy were, in effect, attempting suicide, as any method likely to produce an abortion would probably also kill the mother.

Intrusive techniques involved directly invading the uterus and extracting the fetus. But they were equally dangerous and almost unheard of up until the 18th century. Before that time, knowledge of a woman’s reproductive system was scant, and the abortionist would have had to perform the operation blindly. Without sanitary procedures, anesthetics, or antibiotics, these methods would have certainly killed the mother.

Even when these methods became more common in the 19th century, the abortionist had nothing to guide him. Therefore, there was a high risk of complication.

As abortion being the purview of women, this is also false. Feminists assume that since women wanted to control their fertility and were desperate to do so, they were successful. All the herbs cited for the abortifacient properties had a dubious record. If they were effective, they were usually toxic to the woman. Feminist historians also assume that since midwives were the ones most responsible for abortions, that this knowledge would have been mostly a female secret. But the evidence of prosecutions says otherwise. Prosecutions for abortions were usually brought about in cases where they were involuntary, as the women’s testimony was vital to obtain a conviction. The legal evidence shows that it was men who often sought to control women’s fertility through abortion. It is clear that the information about abortion was not a female-only affair.

Given that abortion was an extremely dangerous practice which, if truly effective, would almost certainly lead to death, and given that women were often victimized by abortion, the legislatures of the day were demonstrably right in attempting to suppress this practice. It was not a misogynistic attempt to control women; a genuine concern for both mother and unborn child led lawmakers to criminalize this practice precisely because men were the ones who usually sought the practice.

Woman conceived in rape bears witness

Juda4praise:

In 1956 Ann was walking home from watching The Ten Commandments when she was raped by 8 men. Soon she would have a decision to make. After finding out she was pregnant she was told she should have an abortion. But her words in a television interview on the day she met Juda were"I couldn't kill a puppy or a kitten so I couldn't kill a baby!" Ann met a priest that helped her find an unwed mothers' home. So she stayed there until she gave birth to a little girl on Valentine's Day. She didn't want to give her away but she knew she couldn't keep her. A woman at the home snuck Juda in to visit her mom each day for 2 weeks. This was a big no-no and the bond had been formed. Ann would have to wait 48 yrs. to see her baby once more.

(...)

What were the circumstances of her conception? I wanted to know the truth. Ann had no hesitations telling me that she had been raped by 8 men. As I buried my face in her lap and cried deeply, Ann patted me on the back."Honey, don't cry. I've forgiven those men and look what God has done. He's brought you back to me. God is faithful!" Wow! What power in those words. And so the two of us thanked God for all He had done. We spent the rest of the day telling everyone else about God's goodness and even did a news interview.

H/T: Values Voter News

Women's real oppressors are those who say abortion doesn't hurt them

Exactly.

There countless women who've been negatively affected by abortion. Feminists toss these women aside as nutjobs, and tell everyone to ignore them.

This is among the reasons why I say feminism is not about women. Feminism is about an ideology.

I've read numerous accounts of women who've had abortions-- even on pro-abortion websites.

And even on these websites, the women express regret and pain.

But the feminists brush this under the carpet.

Because it's an inconvenient truth. They never address the pain of abortion.

Forced abortion, infanticide in China

The Times

Chinese women are daring to speak out themselves. Zhang Linla, who has a four-year-old daughter, told a website in Shenzhen, on the border with Hong Kong, that she was subjected to a late forced abortion because she became pregnant again before the period officially allowed between births.

"Six days before the due date, 10 strong strangers came to my house, forced me into a truck then took me to a family planning clinic, where the doctor gave me an injection," she said.

"The child began struggling in my womb and one of these scum even kicked me in the abdomen. Then the baby came out and they threw it into a rubbish bin. I could even see it was still moving."

I want to undescore how Canadian feminists perceive this situation.

As far as they're concerned, the only crime that took place was that of forcing the woman to undergo an abortion.

The murder of the child in the womb? It didn't take place. Why? Because unborn children have no rights, not even children days from being born.

It is absolutely plausible that some enraged boyfriend or family member might kill an unborn child in a similar fashion (well, okay, minus the injection).

What is the attitude of the feminists toward the baby: tough luck kid. You didn't breathe, you don't exist.

So no unborn victims of crime law to redress the situation.

An even more horrifying story, reported on hundreds of websites, concerned a case of infanticide in Wuhan, central China, last September. A farmer named Huang Qiusheng said his wife, who was nine months pregnant, gave birth to a live child despite being forced to submit to an injection to induce an abortion. The infant was thrown into a urinal.

So to repeat: for feminists-- inside the womb, no rights, once outside the womb, the baby has rights. That magic umbilical cord is the reason to not express any humanity towards that child.

The next day an elderly woman named Liu Zhuyu heard the child's cries, rescued it, washed it and delivered it to a neonatal clinic. But the reports claim that five family planning officials confronted Liu, seized the child and killed it by throwing it to the ground.

The complexity of family planning laws and their arbitrary enforcement often contributes to cases of cruelty.

This month a newspaper in Yunnan province reported a case of compulsory sterilisation that has appalled commentators. It involved a woman named Zhang Kecui, who was ambushed in the street by family planning officials and dragged on to the operating table for a sterilisation.

Zhang has two children and according to regulations should have been sterilised after the second birth. Her husband has lodged a legal complaint but has little hope of redress.

Sociologists and doctors are beginning to question the long-term effects of the birth-control policy.

"As a woman, I believe that coercing a woman who is eight months pregnant to have an abortion is inhuman," a family planning official, who asked not to be named, told The Sunday Times.

Taxpayer-funded feminist mag: sex-selection abortion is genocide

As I was browsing older posts on my French blog, Le ciel est bleu, I came across this post about an issue of La Gazette des femmes, a magazine put out by the Conseil du statut de la femme, the Quebec version of the "Status of Women" agency.

This press release highlights some of the articles in a 2007 issue.

À lire enfin, un reportage dramatique et troublant sur l'avortement sélectif des fœtus féminins en Inde. Écrit par Karina Marceau, « La fin des filles » est un appel vibrant pour que cesse ce véritable génocide.

A véritable génocide.

What? Are those women who abort the fetuses complicit in genocide, now?

Is this Karine Marceau a hate speech perpetrator?

I know that there will be divisions among left-wing readers. Some will say she's propagating hate speech. Others won't.

But that's the danger of re-defining everything one disagrees with as hate speech-- it becomes impossible to criticize or think outside the box.

Identity politics has made legitimate criticism of a group's behaviour impossible. Any criticism is labelled "hate speech" by those who want to silence the opposition.

Karine Marceau made a big mistake in calling it a "génocide"-- from the standpoint of political correctness.

She will eventually be silenced. Because to question a woman's choice-- even a bad one-- is anti-woman. She's denying the autonomy of the women who deliberately chose a sex-selection abortion. That makes her a misogynist.

Abortion and the Free Speech Debate in Canada

Michael Coren, on the repression of pro-life speech in this country:

If anyone assumes that the phenomenon will stop with pro-lifers they are colossally naive.

Exactly.

If the feminists are successful in silencing pro-life speech, they will do it again, possibly to you.

I wonder if we shouldn't be protesting these feminist groups as public censors. Seriously, they should be held up and shamed for their intolerance.

H/T: ProWomanProLife.org

Mark Steyn: On Free Speech

I'm going to put a short quote from Mark Steyn regarding free speech. Because I really want people to get this. It is so vital:

It's not a right/left thing, it's not a conservative/liberal thing, it's a free/unfree thing, and that's what these guys don't always seem to appreciate

It is true that I generally tilt to the right on politial matters, although I'm not completely "orthodox", ideologically speaking.

But that's just the thing.

You should have the absolute freedom to be unorthodox.

You should have the absolute freedom to say what is on your mind.

Period.

How can people be expected to think outside the box if what they say, is in effect, criminalized?

And I know the rejoinder: we should repress "hate".

The word "hate" has been so politicized, it has been re-defined as anything that is contrary to political correctness.

Take, for instance, criticizing homosexual behaviour.

How is criticizing behaviour "hatred"?

People can criticize without being hateful. People can say: hey, this behaviour is detrimental to one's moral,spiritual, physical and psychological health.

Pointing out what one believes to be a detrimental behaviour should not be "hateful".

But the glibberati in this country do not like hearing this criticism.

What other criticisms don't they like?

Are they going to re-define everything as "hate"?

Is encouraging consumption hatred because it means condemning the planet to environmental destruction and therefore leading people to mass poverty and starvation?

Is discouraging debt-spending hatred of the poor because they should be able to have access to the technological benefits of our society?

Is telling union workers that their contract demands are hateful because it shows an utter lack of solidarity to the working person?

These seem far-fetched, but that's where we're going.

The political discourse is being manipulated in this country to re-define words to effectuate the greatest political advantage on the left.

It's almost like the left is taking control of the language, making it means what it wants it to mean, and thereby cow people into silence.

We cannot allow that happen.

And I know that it's not a left/right thing, but it will only come back to bite at least some lefties in the behind, because there will come a time when some left-winger will want to criticize something taboo (that is the mark of a good leftist, right?) and he will be shunned as a "hater" for suggesting certain behaviour and attitudes are less than beneficial.

I use "hate" as an example, but other words are being re-defined. "Harassment" and "violence" are two other words I've seen misused. The resonance of these words is hijacked in order to further a political agenda.

We cannot allow liberty to be curtailed because some people are too ignorant or to lazy to convince the public with logic and arguments that their point of view is the correct one.

But coming back to my original point. If speech is redefined as "hate", "harrassment" and "violence" and these are criminalized, we will not be free to have a political discussion-- or any kind of discussion in this country. You will not be able to have and express an innovative thought that dissents from the glibberati's group think. You will question the glibberati, and they'll accuse you of "hate".

That's where it's going. That's why it's not a left-right thing. It's a freedom thing.

Andrea Mrozek: Paralleling abortion and the Holocaust

Level-headed as usual:

Though Stephanie Gray's manner of fighting abortion is drastically different from my own, I fully support her. Ms. Gray-- executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform -- is not saying abortion is exactly like the Holocaust or slavery. She is saying that where we fail to see people as people, atrocities easily occur -- today, as in history.

Pro-Lifers in Their Own Words #7: Father Ted Colleton

Father Ted Colleton is now retired in Ireland. But in his heyday in the pro-life movement, he leds pickets and blockades of the Morgentaler abortuary in Toronto in the 1980's.

In Toronto and indeed to many pro-lifers across Canada, he is a hero. The Interim has lauded his work. But one thing that we must realize is that these names do not necessarily mean a whole lot to grassroots pro-lifers across the country. This is why it's important to do series like this.

A few years back, I won Father Ted's book Yes I'd do it again (1990) at a Campaign Life Function. Only recently, did I get around to reading it. The bulk of the book is a memoir of his time as a missionary in Kenya. But there were some chapters about his work in the pro-life movement. Fr. Ted went to jail for breaking a court injunction on protesting at a Morgentaler clinic.

I copied several chapters of his book and am publishing them here, in spite of the length. I think it's important that pro-lifers remember our history, and Fr. Ted has many insights in these passages. He wrote the book around 1989, and at the time he was finishing the book, he participated in his first Operation Rescue in Toronto (for which he was sentenced). So he wrote of the events right around the time they took place.

(You can read an interview he gave to Lifesite here).

---

I Join the Pro-Life Movement

In all my years in Kenya, most of which were spent in the bush, I never heard of an abortion. I speak two African languages and I don’t know the word for abortion in either of them. I am sure there were abortions in Nairobi and Mombasa where the white man had brought his specialized form of paganism. But not in the African bush. Babies were considered a gift from God and while there were some illegitimate births, the idea of killing a baby—born or unborn—to avoid inconvenience would never have entered the mind of an African man or woman. Women were undoubtedly second- and third-class citizens, totally under the domination of the man, but a pregnant woman was always treated with respect. She carried within her the future of the tribe and therefore merited every consideration. In Ireland, we have a saying, “Every newborn baby is a sign that God has not yet given up on the human race.” Translated into Kikuyu it might be like this, “Every pregnant woman is a reminder that God wants the tribe to keep going.” Coming from such a pro-baby atmosphere, it came as a shock to find that in Canada babies were murdered in their mothers’ wombs while society condoned such a holocaust. While many did not approve of abortion, they did not consider that they had any moral obligation to do anything about it!

Perhaps it was my Africa background, I am not sure, but I felt that with thousands of babies being murdered I could not sit on the sidelines. I just had to get in the fray.

I first joined Birthright, a very effective organization founded some years before by Mrs. Louise Summerville. Its chief object is to help pregnant girls and women to carry their babies to term. It provides counseling, baby clothes, a place to stay and schooling for those who want to finish high school. My problem was that to be useful, I would have to be a phone volunteer so many days a week. As I was occupied with my work in VICS and would be away quite a lot I would not be of any real value to Birthright.

I then contacted Right to Life, Toronto, and met Mrs. Laura McArthur, the dynamic President. I became a member of the Board of Directors and also a member of the Speakers’ Bureau. I was a little more useful in the latter capacity as the organizer, Mrs. June Scandiffio, could arrange for me to speak in schools when it suited my schedule.

Some time later, while remaining on the Right to Life Board, I joined Campaign Life Coalition under the Presidency of Jim Hughes. This is the political wing of the pro-life movement, while the Right to Life is part of the educational wing. On a basis of trial and error, I found that of the two organizations, I could be more use to Campaign Life Coalition because of the nature of its activities.

Also, a pro-life monthly paper, called The Interim, had been established and I was asked to write a column for it. Perhaps as a result of this column, I began to get invitations to speak at pro-life conventions and banquets, which I love doing. The budding actor of high school has never completely faded away. A good dinner and a few glasses of wine and I’m back on stage. Pro-life audiences are always very responsive – even to Irish jokes! The fact that we are completely united in our cause—the defence of the life of the unborn child – somehow creates a bond of friendship which is far above mere acquaintance.

I have talked and eaten my way across the length and breadth of Canada and even into the United States. And I have really enjoyed it. I am sometimes introduced in such glowing terms that I wonder if I am that person! I like to introduce myself as both an expert and a specialist. An expert I define as a “dope away from home” and a specialist as “one who gets to know more and more about less and less until eventually he knows everything about nothing.” It’s a good start in case you ever have to make a speech.

The time inevitably came when, having preached and talked and written about the evil of abortion, I felt I had to take direct action. I had constantly picketed outside the abortuary run by Henry Morgentaler. At least 15 babies were—and are—murdered every day, five days a week in this house of death. Of course, there are abortions being performed in a number of Toronto hospitals. But the Morgentaler “clinic” exists solely to do abortions. Therefore, it is the best place to have protests. Also, at that time, the facility was illegal and the government refused to close it. Having discussed the matter with a number of pro-life people, I decided that the best action would be to put a padlock on the rear gate through which the women and girls entered the premises.

There was a police guard both front and back 24 hours a day. Since I had to lock the gate while it was still dark, Steve Jalsevac of Campaign Life Coalition offered to drive me down between five and six in the morning. I felt very brave until we got near the abortuary, and then I began to hope we would be hit by a bus. We drove to the back gate and had stopped before the police officer realized what was happening. I jumped out and was putting the padlock on the gate when he got to me and we had a bit of a struggle. I got the padlock on and locked. He asked me to get into the police car and we went through the usual procedure – name, age, weight, etc. Then he looked at me and said with a smile, “This is ironic, Father. When I was in high school, you came and gave us a slide show on the missions. I never thought I would be arresting you.”

Since that occasion I have been arrested at least a dozen times. I have been on trial on about four occasions. I have been fined several times, but have always refused to pay the fines. I have told both the judges and the police that I would not pay five cents’ penalty for defending unborn babies even if it were to save me from being hanged. And I mean exactly that.

I am writing this on June 14, 1989. An injunction has been issued by a judge forbidding anyone to engage in any kind of pro-life demonstration within 500 feet of the Morgentaler abortuary. This injunction includes praying. I believe that we have an obligation to defy such an infringement of our civil rights. But, what is infinitely more important, we have a moral obligation to put our bodies on the line in defence or the preborn babies. After I write this sentence, I am going to the Morgentaler murder house to say the rosary on the back steps. If and when I return, I shall let you know what happened.

---

June 15, 1989. What Happened

Yesterday morning about 11 o’clock, I went to the abortuary and knelt on the back steps where the women and girls enter. The security guard came out and the usual dialogue took place. “You are trespassing on private property. Would you please leave?” “No, Bill, I won’t leave.” Police are sent for and two officers arrive. “Father, you are, etc Would you please leave?” “No, officer, I shall not leave.” “You are under arrest. Please come with us.” Into the back of the yellow car and over to Division 14 where I am as well-known now as if I were on the staff. A big Irish sergeant from Galway welcomes me and goes through the usual procedure, taking evidence from the officers who arrested me. Then up to a bare room, with white walls.

I am left alone for quite a while. I think this is part of the therapy. You are left alone to contemplate your crimes. I say three rosaries. Then an officer unlocks the door and says “O.K., Father, you are being released without any charges. “ I say, “You police are not doing your duty. I broke the injunction, and I should be charged like anyone else.” “I’m only carrying out orders, Father.”

On a previous occasion I had heard one officer saying to another “We’ve got to release him. It is instructions from the attorney-general.” If this is true, it is a blatant disregard for the law on the part of the attorney-general. Since it doesn’t suit the political scene, at the moment, to have a priest or minister in jail, justice—in the secular sense of the word—is brushed under the carpet. I’m back in the office again looking out the window. And wondering what to do next!

---

Operation Rescue

I didn’t have to wonder too long. A few days after the episode I have described in the last chapter, I got a phone call telling me that there would be an Operation Rescue at the Morgentaler Abortuary on August 23 (1989). Before describing the circumstances which led to my arrest and eventual imprisonment, perhaps it is a good idea to explain what Operation Rescue is all about.

The idea is based on the words of the Book of Proverbs (4:11) “Rescue those unjustly sentenced to death.” And also on the words of the Psalmist (Psalm 82:4) “Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them not into the hands of the wicked.” The practical application of these scriptural principles to the North American scene began in the U.S. a few years ago. Following the inspiration of such dedicated American pro-lifers as Joan Andrews and John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, Randall Terry is the chief organizer of Operation Rescue in the U.S.

Operation Rescue calls on people to put their bodies on the line in defence of preborn babies. On the arranged morning, pro-life people gather outside an abortuary to sit on the steps abd block the doorways. This prevents staff from entering and makes it impossible for the women and girls who want abortions to get into the building. Before going to the particular abortuary the rescuers gather in a hotel or hall for final instruction. They are divided into two distinct groups—the rescuers and the supporters. The rescuers are those who are prepared to actually block the entrance and get arrested; the supporters stand at some distance and pray. They do not invite arrest, but they want to show their active support. Before approaching the abortuary, every rescuer has to sign a paper saying that he or she promises not to engage in any violence whatsoever, either physical or verbal. If they are physically assaulted they will not counterattack. If they are verbally abused, they will not reply. When arrested they will not resist.

It is a heroic promise, but it works, and I have witnessed the most heroic patience on the part of the rescuers. It is also absolutely necessary, as any reaction to violence would end in nothing less than pitched battles. The pro-abortion people engage in the most disgusting, violent and blasphemous language imaginable. A like response on the part of the rescuers would be fatal. It is an exercise in prayer, penance and patience in support of the threatened babies.

In the United States, Operation Rescue has been successful, though not overwhelmingly so. But there is no doubt about this fact: scores of babies have been spared and allowed to live because of Operation rescue. The pro-abortionists have admitted in court that 20 per cent of women who turn away rather than face the rescuers do not apply again for an abortion.

The first Operation Rescue in Canada was held outside the Morgentaler Abortuary in Toronto on October 29, 1988. Seventy-five pro-lifers blocked the entrance and 100 supporters prayed and sang hymns. The abortuary was kept closed for the entire day and no babies were killed. There were several rescues during the year following the first and they were relatively successful. The one which I am about to describe had particular significance owing to the fact that a court injunction had been imposed stating that anyone who protested within 500 feet of the Morgentaler abortuary was guilty of a crime and would be arraigned before a judge with possibility of a prison sentence.

At seven o’clock in the morning, we assembled in a hotel near the abortuary and Reverend Steven Hill led us in hymn singing and prayers. He then gave us our final instructions. He stressed the importance of prayer and non-violence. We walked to 85 Harbord Street—“The Morgentaler Clinic”. About 30 pro-abortionists were already there and were sitting on the steps to prevent us from doing so. They had somehow found out the day and the time of the rescue. There is always a leak and they get to know the day and the time. However they were – unwittingly perhaps—helping to keep the place closed.

There were about 80 rescuers and perhaps 50 supporters. We took our places wherever we could find space both at the front and the back of the building. When girls and women came along seeking entrance to the abortuary, they were quietly contacted by some of our counselors who tried to convince them that their baby was a real baby and that abortion meant killing him or her. Needless to say the reaction to this counseling is always different. Some women will get angry, others will listen and agree to re-think their situation. Success is never 100 per cent but even one baby saved makes the rescue well worthwhile.

Probably because of my clerical collar, I became the target of one small group of pro-abortionists. They glared at me and shouted obscenities and blasphemies. They suggested that I go to Newfoundland “and go to jail with your buddies there.” This obviously referred to the tragic sex scandal involving priests and brothers in that part of Canada. I just looked over their heads and said nothing. I realized the wisdom of the “non-verbal violence” agreement. There is a very strong temptation to reply to these verbal assaults. But that would simply provoke a shouting match which would be most undignified and would not save a baby—and that is the whole object of Operation Rescue.

After about an hour the police arrive in quite large numbers with several paddy wagons. They went through the usual procedure of asking people to move. When we all refused they read us our “rights” and then hauled us off to the waiting wagons. I found it hard to believe that the police in Canada could be so violent. They dragged people along the street in the mud, feet first, and literally threw them into the vans. It was an almost exact repeat of the performances one sees on television taking place in some of the Middle East countries.

Then it came to my turn. I was sitting on the steps and two officers asked me to move. I refused and one of them read my rights. I didn’t bother to listen as I have heard it all before and it means nothing to me but it is part of the procedure. I was then grabbed and hauled to the wagon. I didn’t go limp as I haven’t yet learned how. But I did not resist either.

When our wagon was full we were taken to 14 Division Police Station and put through the usual rigamarole—name, height, weight, colour of eyes etc. Then we were finger-printed and photographed. We were kept for hours—until midnight—in a large room. We had good fun and were fed. Around midnight the men were taken to Don Jail and the women to the Weston Prison.

We were strip-searched and given a prison outfit and taken to the cells. This was well into the small hours of the morning. The noise of shouting and yelling and foul language of the inmates was just awful. We were locked into our cells with other prisoners whom we did not know. My companion was a young black man. He was very polite and explained that I would have to sleep on the top bunk as he did not like heights. At 76, climbing to the top bunk is not as easy as it would be at 25. But I eventually arrived there.

Next day, we were driven—in shackles—to Old City Hall in Toronto for a preliminary trial. We were herded into a large holding cell with about 70 other prisoners. There was seating for about 40, so you either had to stand or sit on the floor. As far as I could gather from the casual conversations, the majority were “in” for drug-related charges. Most of them claimed that they were innocent and had been in the wrong house at the wrong time. The entire scene gave one a terrible picture of wasted lives. Most of them seemed to be in their twenties. For them, what did the future hold!

We were taken into the courtroom four at a time. We were asked if we would sign a document saying that we would not approach within 500 feet of the abortuary before the day of our trial—which would be October 4 and this was August 24. I had my ticket to fly to Ireland the following day. I knew there were people among us who would have to sign the assurance because of having young children or because their jobs would be in jeopardy. Other people depended on them and they had to take that into account. I could not fit myself into any such category. The Church and the Holy Ghost Fathers can survive without me. My secretary, Mary Wildfong, knows the running of the office much better than I do. The holiday in Ireland, while being attractive, could wait till another time. So, I really couldn’t see my way to sign.

I explained the situation to the judge saying that it was almost certain that I would not visit the abortuary as I would be away, but I could not in conscience sign an assurance. I rather hoped that he might say that under the circumstances he would accept this verbal assurance. But he didn’t and I was marched off to jail with six other pro-lifers who would not sign. In retrospect I was very glad that the judge did not agree. I would have felt miserable if I had been at home in Ireland enjoying myself while my friends were in prison.

---

Prison

I have written two articles for The Interim on life in prison. One article considers it from a negative point of view, and the other from the positive. They follow after this chapter. Briefly I said that prison as prison is a terrible experience. To be locked behind bars like a wild beast from which society must be protected is, in itself, a shocking indignity. Even if the physical conditions are not intolerable—as they weren’t—the loss of personal freedom plus the depersonalization which prison deliberately induces have a dehumanizing effect which defies description. If a person were in prison because of a crime, I believe it would leave a spiritual and psychological scar which time could not erase. But when one is in prison for a cause, the situation is entirely different.

We could have walked out as free men by signing a piece of paper. But we chose prison rather than sign away our consciences. We were physically bound but spiritually free—and it is a great feeling! That was perhaps the most positive aspect of our incarceration. The well-known words of the English poet Richard Lovelace—also a prisoner of conscience in the 17th century—kept coming back to me, “Stone walls do not a prison make. Nor iron bars a cage.” The truth and the power of these words were exemplified every hour of the day in the spirits and the inner peace of the men who shared prison with me. There were no complaints but plenty of laughter and fun along with seriousness and prayer.

We had Mass in the cell every day, which meant so much to all of us. It is at time like this that we really value our Faith. I think a spell in prison also helps us to realize how much we take for granted when we are free—the comforts of home life, the tasty food, the freedom to go where we please and read what we like, to hop into the car and drive to see a friend and wear the clothes that suit us, the feel of money in our pockets. None of these very human experiences were ours when behind prison bars. And yet we were happy even though uncomfortable. Amid the ephemeral trappings of the world, it is easy to confuse a life-style with life. When we are reduced to a common human denominator we begin to realize that there is far more to life than a life-style and to living than the accumulation of “things.” The words of another English poet somehow spring to mind. Was it Grey who wrote “The paths of glory lead but to the grave?”

On October 4, we were again taken to court for our official trial. When we entered the court room—handcuffed to each other—the packed court rose to its collective feet and applauded. This we had not expected and it was difficult to hold back our tears. We were “de-cuffed” and the proceedings commenced. Judge Silverman was obviously unsympathetic from the start. Paul Dodds, our lawyer, defended us admirably and a Toronto gynaecologist, Dr. Dennis Xuereb, gave an excellent demonstration with pictures and slides showing the humanity of the unborn child. The judge appeared to absent himself mentally from the evidence. When the doctor had finished the judge declared that his demonstration was irrelevant to the case. He – the judge—was not interested in whether or not unborn babies are human beings or not. All he was interested in was that we broke the injunction. We were then treated to a legal harangue in which His Honour called us criminals and potential terrorists. He deferred judgment until the next day.

The eventual outcome was that we were found guilty. Those of us who had been detained in jail were free now. But all 76 of the accused were put on probation for a year. If we break the injunction again before October 5, 1990, we will be liable to a longer prison sentence. We were not asked to sign anything except a paper saying that we understood the terms. As this was simply a statement of fact we had no trouble signing it. And so we were “free” again. I have to admit that it was a good feeling.

A great pro-life friend of mine, Canon Bob Green, Pastor of St. Bartholomew’s Anglican Church, took me out to dinner that evening. In prison I had lost my appetite and thought I would never recover it. But I did. After wrapping myself round a large juicy steak I went home to enjoy a good night’s sleep in my own bed. That, too, is a good feeling.

---

Prison From the Inside

As I think most readers of The Interim are familiar with the events which led up to my six-week incarceration together with six other men, I shall skip those details and describe life in prison. I have decided to write two articles, one on the negative side of prison life and the other on the positive side. Of the two, the latter aspect is far more important.

I had never been in jail before—except for a few hours—so I had no idea what to expect. It is an experience which I will never forget, which I would not like to repeat, but which I believe I shall. We were incarcerated in the Mimico Correctional Centre, which has been described as the “Country Club” of Canadian prisons. It is probably the least severe of all Canadian jails and certainly bears no comparison with prisons in other parts of the world. In general we were treated well and—remembering that we were inmates—I have no complaints. But as the saying goes, “Prison is prison is prison.”

Apart from the particular prison or the treatment meted out, prison is a most degrading, dehumanizing, animalizing experience. That is the aspect on which I wish to concentrate in this article. I shall mention the details to which one would not normally allude in a respectable paper. But I think it is necessary to be verbally vivid in order to let people know the price that must be paid as the cost of moral conviction. The first thing that happens to a prisoner on entering jail is a strip search. This means standing completely naked before a prison officer and in a fairly public place—in our case this was in the Don Jail, prior to being taken to Mimico. All your earthly belongings are taken from you—except your spectacles. I asked if I could retain my rosary beads but was told “No!” You are then given prison clothes which may not fit you. It is a drab outfit of dark blue. When we had gone through this most embarrassing adventure, we were herded into a holding cell and left there for a long period. I don’t know for how long as our watches had been taken from us.

I think it was only then that I began to realize what prison life really involves. Up to that point everything had occurred in quick succession and there was little opportunity to dwell on the situation. But while I was sitting or standing in the cell it dawned on me that “depersonalization” is inherent in the prison system. From that point on we were “nobodies” with no rights—apart from the basic right not to be killed.

It is said that we do not appreciate the gifts of sight or hearing until we lose them. Neither do we appreciate the gift of freedom until it is taken from us. I think it is true to say that every war that has ever been fought was engaged in by one side or the other in defence of freedom. I believe that we priests are freer than most human beings. We do not have to take into account family commitments and obligations. For many years I have lived a very free life. With obvious restrictions, I could decide where I would go on a particular day; where I would eat; whom I would visit. Suddenly I found myself like a caged animal, locked behind bars, an undesirable from whom society must be protected. On three occasions we were taken to court in a police van—shackled together, both hands and feet.

Next to the loss of freedom I would rate the total loss of privacy. Perhaps it is an even worse experience. When I say “total” I mean ”TOTAL.” From the moment one enters jail one is constantly under observation. From time immemorial it has been the custom—at least in civilized society—for human beings to exercise their less noble bodily functions behind closed doors. Not so in prison. In the holding cells in the Don Jail and the Old City Hall, the toilet bowl is in the open against one of the walls with no door. When we were there the cells were occupied by perhaps 50 to 70 inmates. I am not being facetious when I say that you had about as much privacy as a monkey in a zoo. We hoped there would be some improvement in Mimico, but our hopes were dashed. It was slightly better, as there were low walls surrounding the toilets, but no doors. We had a number of young women guards who might pass along by the window at any time when one was on the toilet or having a shower. I am not saying that they ever did, but the fact that they could and might rendered one’s necessary biological operations less than comfortable.

Having read the above, do you think that I am exaggerating when I say that prison is a degrading and de-humanizing experience? This particular aspect of it, in my opinion, reduces man to the level of the beast. “Security” could be given as an explanation. For four years I was on the staff of the Mau Mau Detention Camps in Kenya. With the lack of running water, the best they could do for toilets was the bucket system. But every toilet had a door on it. And the British at the time were super sensitive about security.

Personally I found boredom in the third negative aspect of prison life. We rose at 6:30 a.m. and lights went out at 10:30 p.m. So we had 16 hours of unoccupied time. As we were on “remand,” we were in maximum security and so had no access to the library. Fortunately the Gideons supply prisoners with bibles, and they were our main reading material. But one can tire even of reading the Bible. We prayed a lot and talked a lot. We got twenty minutes’ exercise in the prison yard. With no arm chairs and only hard stools on which to sit, we spent a lot of time on our beds, and I felt that my IQ was gradually ebbing away from sheer lack of incentive.

The point I am about to make might appear to be insignificant to some people and it is the last on my list of “negatives.” It is the fact that in prison one is always addressed by one’s surname. I believe that we priests are spoiled in many way. Whatever people may call us behind our backs, we are invariably treated with respect to our faces. Catholics and most other people will give us the title “Father.” But in prison I was “Colleton.” Through the kindness of my Holy Ghost confreres, I had a visit from a priest almost every day. Most of the guards were courteous and considerate and they simply called you and said “You are wanted for a visit.” But a few were lacking in any sense of refinement and seemed to delight in roaring “Colleton! Visit!” They used exactly the same tone they would use in ordering a dog to lie down. I believe it was another part of the “de-personalization process.” One of the “inmates” was Dr. Ray Holmes, a retired dentist. Ray is a silver-haired 70, possessed of a lovable nature, a most cultured manner and a deep faith. He has 19 grandchildren. I cringed every time I heard, “Holmes. Visit,” shouted by a guard half Ray’s age, with probably a quarter of his education and none of his culture. But “Prison is prison is prison.”

In this article I have dwelt only on the negative elements of life in prison. But there is far more to it than that. Being in captivity for a cause makes all the difference.

---

“Stone Walls Do Not a Prison Make”

In the last month’s Interim, I described life in prison from the negative point of view. The humiliation and degradation of being reduced to the status of a beast—locked behind bars, bereft of the normal privacy, which is part of civilized living, spoken to as if one were a dog. That is certainly a very real and tangible aspect of prison life. However, there is another point of view—the positive or spiritual.

A 17th century poet, Richard Lovelace, who was also a prisoner of conscience, expressed the positive side of prison in these memorable words, “Stone walls do not a prison make nor iron bars a cage.” The body can be rendered captive—but not the spirit! If I had been imprisoned for a crime, murder or robbery, I would have found prison intolerable. I quite understand now, how people who do not have faith hang themselves in jail. When there is nothing to look forward to but years of degradation, loss of freedom, no privacy, systematic depersonalization, and to add to all this, a sense of personal guilt, what is there to live for? But, being in prison for a cause makes all the difference. All the difference between night and day, light and darkness; I might almost say, heaven and hell. From feeling captive, I experienced an extraordinary sense of freedom. First of all, I did not have to be there. I had only to request the presence of a district justice and sign the condition imposed by the judge and I was free. But I would not have been really free. For—in my particular case—I would have compromised my conscience. My body would have been at liberty, but not my spirit. And that is the lowest form of slavery.

Another positive side to our being in prison was the fact that we were walking in the footsteps of the great. The fact came to me with more than ordinary force one morning when I was reading from the Scriptures. I had not chosen the particular passage, it just “happened” to be part of my daily reading. It is the letter of St. Paul to the Philippians (1:12-14), written from prison:

“I want you to know brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest, that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brethren have been made confident in the Lord because of imprisonment and are much more bold to speak without fear.”

If my imprisonment was not for Christ, it had no meaning at all. The prison guards certainly knew why we were there and I know that some of them admitted our stand for the lives of the unborn. The fact that more than a thousand pro-life people gathered outside the prison for prayer vigils with lighted candles and the hundreds of letters—which I am still receiving—many from people I have never met, are strong indications that our voluntary confinement had a tremendous witness value. All of these things made the positive side of our imprisonment so important that the negative side was almost entirely blotted out.

The highways of history are strewn with evidence of the sufferings of those who gave themselves for a cause as prisoners of conscience, rather than compromise their principles. St. Peter, “Are we to obey God or men?” St. Paul, “I am here (in prison) for the defense of the Gospel.” St. Thomas More, “ I die the Kind’s good servant, but God’s first.” David Packer, “ I will not guard a house where babies are being killed.” Joan Andrews, “ I do not need to explain to you why I refused to pay the fine or allow anyone to pay it for me—though it was offered. I always knew what my response would be, but I am even more confirmed in it now, with a renewed sensitivity toward not compromising the dignity of the unborn.”

These are but a few of the myriads of people who have written their names in blood and tears in the pages of human annals. Some have passed, but their witness remains like bright stars, reminding us that, though causes differ with every age, principles do not. In every generation, man’s inhumanity to man, whatever form it may take, presents a challenge to those who have learned the truth of the Gospel dictum, “Not on bread alone doth man live.”

People, even the best intentioned, have been confused recently about Operation Rescue. They say that people have no right to break the law. Our Lord made this situation very clear when he asked in the Gospel of St. Matthew to explain the relationship between the state (Caesar) and God. In other words, which do we obey when there is a conflict of commands. Jesus took a coin of the realm and asked, “Whose image is on this?” They said “Caesar’s.” He replied “Render to Caesar (the state) what belongs to Caesar and to God the things that are God’s.” Whose image is stamped on the soul of a child? We find the answer in the book of Genesis (1:26-27) “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness.’ So, God created man in His own image, in the image of God, He created him.”

It is this fact and this fact alone that makes human life sacred. The life of an unborn child belongs to God and not to Caesar and when Caesar makes laws “legalizing” abortion, he is assuming the mantle of God. All such laws are totally null and void and we have not only the right but the obligation to oppose them by non-violent civil disobedience. If 15 children were being murdered every day in a school, would you “pass by on the other side” because it would be illegal to trespass? I hope not!

Our six weeks in prison gave us time to think and pray and that was surely a plus. But, one of the most positive aspects of life behind the bars was the companionship of six wonderful people. We were of different ages, different races, different levels of education and different religions. But the one great unifying factor was our cause—the right of the unborn child to the gift of life. For that cause we were prepared not only to endure imprisonment, but even death. And I believe it will come to that. If a husband were to say to his wife, “ I shall love you as long as you are young and beautiful and slim and exciting, “ he is really saying, “I do not love you at all.” If a soldier were to say to his commanding officer, “Yes, I have joined the army, I shall fight for my country, but I refuse to die,” would he be considered a true soldier?

If we set limits to our love and fidelity for the unborn child, we are less than fully sincere. We may not be asked to die. But we must be mentally prepared to give our all. Think and pray about it!

Life After Abortion

Moral Outcry:

It is important that we pray for the ending of abortion by praying for hearts and laws to change, but lest we not forget those who have already had an abortion and are hurting. If abortion were to end today, we would still have millions of mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters, and other family members that are without a special person in their life due to the
tragedy of abortion.

(...)

Even though I was sharing my story and seemed to be healed, I was still rejecting Hannah as my daughter. I realized that there was still a part of me that did not believe she was really a person. It was easier for me to receive forgiveness and just move on. Deep healing did not come until I recognized and acknowledged that I was and am a mother. This process of accepting our aborted children may look different for each one of us. In my case, I did several things. The first thing that I did was to have a memorial for Hannah at the National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, TN. At the memorial, they have a wall with plaques recognizing aborted children. Hannah has had a plaque there for several years. I had the memorial service right in front of the wall near her plaque. Many of my close friends came to join me as we celebrated her life. After the memorial, I was given a certificate of Life for her. I have signed the certificate and my future husband looks forward to signing it as well. The entire memorial was video taped so that I can show my children in the future. Again, this process may look different for you, but I want to encourage you and speak the truth over you that you are not crazy to need to do something like this. In my life, it closed the door to rejection. As I accepted my daughter into my family the way the Lord led me to, it closed a door of darkness in my life that was influencing other areas of my life.