Disgusting Description of a C-Section. Is this legit?

An obstetrician describes a repeat C-section (a ninth). It is pretty gross.

I've had three C-sections. There are details in his description that I didn't know about.

I think this is scare-mongering (because some people have an ideological bias against c-sections for lots of reasons (including fetal welfare)-- no joke!) But I think this kind of information is necessary.

Millions of women get c-sections every year. Should women be told what the surgery consists of?

Should this be said in an effort to discourage women from C-sections?

C-sections are actually pretty controversial. So I expect a variety of opinions.

And if giving this information on c-sections is okay, why shouldn't it be available for abortions?

Why we have abortion

The Austin Statesman published an interview with an elderly woman who did a thesis on the mass media's influence in promoting The Pill. She was also one of the first people in Central Texas to have access to it.

Certain gynecologists had been authorized to select clients for the trial test because they weren't sure of the total aftereffects of this pill. In Waco in 1962, I got a doctor to prescribe the pill. I was so enamored with the fact that it was supposed to be foolproof.

Fullproof, huh?

Tell that to the thousands of women who get pregnant while on the pill.

When the pill was first launched, the medical director of Planned Parenthood refused to give the pill to unmarried women until they had had their second illegitimate child. Eventually, the board, which I was on, persuaded him to change the rule so a woman could get on the pill after having just one child out of wedlock.

And giving single women The Pill did NOTHING WHATSOEVER to promote promiscuity. (/sarcasm).

Access to the pill has improved, but even if you can't pay anything, you can still buy it subsidized from Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood pushes everything but abortion.

Yeah, that would explain all those marketing tools to promote abortion...

The Sixties. It was such a naive time.

Yeah, this is the guy I want prosecuting child sex abuse in the Church

Monsignor Charles Scicluna pulls no punches.


In his homily this morning, Mgr Scicluna spoke on the relationship between Jesus and children, saying that the church had always had a special care and solicitude for children and the weak.

Quoting St. Gregory the Great, Mgr Scicluna suggested that sex abuse sins were especially heinous when committed by priests.

"After having taken a profession of holiness, anyone who destroys others through words or deed would have been better off if their misdeeds had caused them to die in secular dress, rather than, through their holy office, being imposed as an example for others in their sins. Without doubt, if they had fallen all by themselves, their suffering in Hell would be easier to bear."

The remedy to such scandals offered by God as the "Divine Surgeon," according to Mgr Scicluna, was to "cut out [disease] in order to heal," and to "amputate in order to restore health."

It was widely reported that he said that abusers are going to hell.

I'm sure it was a misquote. But I sure like the attitude!

Here's an interview with Monsignor Charles Scicluna on the sex abuse scandal and how the Vatican operates on this matter.

New Abortion Clinics in China Anger Feminists

The Times of London:

MARIE STOPES, the British birth-control charity, has sparked anger from women’s rights campaigners by setting up a chain of abortion clinics in China, where the country’s population control policies routinely pressure women into terminating their pregnancies.

Marie Stopes International (MSI) has opened five outlets in China’s eastern province of Jiangsu. Here the selective abortion of girls has led to a gender imbalance of up to 131 boys for every 100 girls.

The closeness of MSI’s relationship with the Chinese government was shown earlier this month when Li Bin, its population minister, visited the MSI offices in London and an abortion clinic in Bristol.

It sounds like Marie Stopes is becoming a tool of the Chinese government.

Comments fixed?

I think I fixed the comments.

Does anyone want to try?

Email me if there's still a problem.

The Pope is not the Bishop's Boss.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput explains how the Church hierarchy operates. In sum:

The Church is much closer to a confederation of families than a modern corporation. And this has real, everyday results. In practice, the influence of the Holy See on the daily life of theArchdiocese of Denver is strong in matters of faith and morals. We’re deeply grateful for the leadership and wonderful teaching of the papacy. But in the operational decisions of our local Church, the Holy See’s influence is remote. In twenty-two years as a bishop, my problems have never included a controlling or intrusive Vatican.

The Pope is not the bishop's boss. Yes, he could theoretically depose anyone he liked, but his role is not to micromanage the world's dioceses. He picks a bishop, then he lets the bishop do his job, and unless the bishop commits an infraction that endangers the unity of the Church or apostolic succession, the pope practically never intervenes in the bishop's affairs. If the bishop sucks, he sucks. The pope doesn't replace him. It's not the same operating principle as a business.

Cardinal Ouellet and Archbishop Prendergast to host Press Conference on Abortion TODAY!

At 1:30 pm Eastern. In English and French. It will be live streamed here.

I suspect there will be an archive if you miss the live version.

Paul Tuns Reviews The Armageddon Factor

Paul Tuns is the editor of The Interim, Canada's pro-life paper. He writes at Sobering Thoughts:

There are four fatal problems with the book: wild exaggerations and conjecture, factual errors, a core misunderstanding of the subject matter, and a clear bias that prevents accurately depicting the story of Canada’s religious conservatives – a story that should be told. Unfortunately, McDonald is not the person to write such a book. Considering that the casual reader might not be equipped to detect all the factual mistakes, there is absolutely no benefit to reading The Armageddon Factor and indeed some harm due to the misinformation the author is peddling.

It's official. I won't bother.

Eucharistic Procession on Parliament Hill

AKA The Catholic version of "The Cry" :)

SHRIEK! THE CATHOLICS ARE COMING! THE CATHOLICS ARE COMING!

Maybe Marci McDonald has a sequel coming ;)

I'm sorry this was not better publicized. More Catholics should have shown up.

She blames the patriarchy!

From Megan at The Abortion Gang:

When I aborted nearly three years ago, it was, indeed, a tremendous relief. I spent several hellish weeks before the procedure groaning in hormonal discomfort as I lumbered around my college campus. By the time I made it to the clinic, I was so miserable that I just wanted it over with and out of me. I had plans. I wanted to finish school. A baby was not an option. And my life-long Republican parents, astonishingly, supported, even encouraged, my decision.

But the stigma lingered. The few friends to whom I disclosed early on wept for me or told me that my “shocking” confession momentarily stopped their hearts. I recoiled each and every time the abortion debate surfaced on my television screen, in my inbox, in the overheard conversations of friends and acquaintances. I’d burst into tears at inappropriate moments for no apparent reason. I felt closeted, alone. Suicide crossed my mind on more than one occasion as I contemplated my “selfish” decision to abort a child. After all, I told myself, my mom and late grandma sacrificed everything for their children.

Consider a sexism-free society in which women aren’t shackled to essentialist notions of motherhood. Consider a society in which women aren’t accosted by screaming antis and gruesome, doctored images of seemingly-mangled fetuses outside of abortion clinics. Consider a society in which “abortion” isn’t a foul and unutterable word. Consider a society in which this safe and legal medical procedure is treated as normal and is readily available—a society in which abortion providers and their families aren’t subjected to threats of violence and heinous acts of murder.

In this society, there would be no such thing as “Post-Abortion Syndrome” (there isn’t now, but you know what I mean). And I’m quite sure that I never would’ve experienced the so-called symptoms that I experienced.

So, yes, antis, I blame you.

A lot of the women who are Silent No More were pro-choice, too, hun.

I love how she fears being misinterpreted.

Gee-- having the same post-abortive symptoms as other Silent No More witnesses...what could possibly be misinterpreted in that?

...

I'm still somewhat under the weather people. I just saw this and had to publish.

Cardinal Ouellet-- and Blogging Hiatus

Hi all

I'm sorry for my relatively prolonged absence. I'm very tired and have a lot going on in the background.

I also wish to concentrate on my French blogging.

I need everyone to pray for Cardinal Ouellet. He is getting eaten alive for his defense of fetal rights this weekend. The hatred is visceral.

One columnist wished him a slow painful death.

One tweeter said his mother should have aborted him.

A popular talk show host is spreading the meme that he's reactionary, stupid and disconnected from reality.

And of course you get the typical illogical comments: he's a man, he's celibate, he's a priest, he runs a pedophile church.

If you can think it, they said it about him.

He is getting absolutely NO SUPPORT. Even the support from his fellow clergy is milquetoast. Some clergy, like Fr. Gravel, the Archbishop of Rouyn-Noranda and at least one other priest said that abortion in the case of rape is okay.

Quebec is the Achilles' heel of the pro-life movement. We must concentrate on penetrating the hate, getting out the facts and touching people's hearts. Please pray.

I'm going to take time off. So much going on in my life. I need the Holy Spirit to lift me up.

Abortion is Love

Sure mom

Do these Abortioneers ever really THINK before writing this stuff? Talk about being deep in denial!

VIDEO: March for Life 2010

Here is a short video that I made with footage that I took of the March for Life in Ottawa (May 13th, 2010). Just bits and pieces to give you a feel of what it was like on the ground.



I also have some of the MP's speeches at the March for Life, but I just haven't gotten around to posting. I'm also working on my footage of the handful of Silent No More testimonies.

Arson Attack on Swedish Cartoonish Lars Vilks

From Sweden, that leftist haven:

In a comment to this latest attempt on Vilks’ life, the President of the Free Press Society Lars Hedegaard expresses his astonishment.

“How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks’ house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?”

Embattled George Rekers Resigns From NARTH, Offered Legal Aid by Liberty Counsel

Although I will reserve judgement, this smells of a set up...


Please see the original article for all the relevant, accompanying links.

MIAMI, Florida, May 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Professor George Rekers, a pro-family leader and expert on homosexuality, who is embroiled in a scandal after he was found to have hired a traveling companion with a profile on a homosexual escort service website, has resigned his membership on the board of National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). He said that he made the decision in order to resolve the allegations made against him through defamation attorneys.

At the same time, a leading Christian legal advocacy group, Liberty Counsel, has offered to provide him their services in the event of legal action. "I think [Mr. Rekers] would have a great case to file a defamation action," Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told the Washington Times.

Rekers, 61, was caught on camera by the Miami New Times on April 13 returning from a 10 day trip in Europe with a homosexual male escort later identified as Jo-vanni Roman, 20.

Roman at first denied that he had any sexual involvement with Rekers, but later alleged that Rekers paid him $75 a day plus travel expenses in exchange for acting as a travel assistant, translator, and sensual masseur. According to a contract allegedly made between Rekers and Roman, a copy of which Roman showed to CNN, Rekers specifically contracted Roman to provide an hourly massage every day while on the trip.

Rekers, a co-founder of the Family Research Council (FRC) and professor emeritus of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina, has denied accusations that he had sexual involvement with Roman, saying only that he required a travelling companion to help lift luggage because of recent surgery. He has also denied that he contacted Roman through the website rentboys.com, which Roman has claimed was the only way Rekers could have found him.

The embattled pro-family leader, who has seen his career and reputation collapse under the weight of the allegations, has threatened to sue media outlets like the New Times for “defamation.”

Rekers is not without his supporters. "I think it was a completely arranged setup," Liberty Counsel’s Matt Staver told the Washington Times, referring to how staff members of the New Times managed to ambush Rekers and Roman as they made their way through the Miami airport.

The possibility that Rekers is the victim of a set-up owing to his connections with NARTH cannot be completely ruled out. Earlier this year Dr. Julie Hamilton, president of NARTH, revealed that protestors at NARTH’s 2009 Convention had announced they would go after individual members associated with the organization. Hamilton said one journalist in England conducted a sting against two therapists by posing as a client with unwanted homosexual attractions.

But while the Miami New Times revealed Thursday that they did indeed ambush Roman and Rekers, they said Roman was not involved in any set-up. According to their account one of Roman’s friends knew his passwords, got into his email, and gave the newspaper screen shots of Roman’s e-mails and his travel itinerary. The New Times journalists studied the information, camped out at the airport, snapped the photo, and spoke with both Rekers and Roman before breaking the story May 4.

Rekers says he has opted to resolve the matter through attorneys instead of addressing the allegations through the media.

"With the assistance of a defamation attorney, I will fight these false reports because I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever,” said a statement from Rekers. “I am not gay and never have been.”

NARTH has accepted Rekers resignation and in a statement said they “would hope that the legal process will sufficiently clarify the questions that have arisen in this unfortunate situation.”

“We express our sincere sympathy to all individuals, regardless of their perspective, who have been injured by these events.”


Rekers Responds to Conflicting Accounts about Finding Jo-Vanni Roman

At this point Rekers may be the only one who can set the record straight; but thus far his explanations have been somewhat thin on the details, especially on the issue of how he found Roman.

The New Times on Thursday stated that Rekers told them that he found Roman through a Google search.

The New Times asked, "Where did you find out about his services as a travel companion? Where were they being advertised?"

Rekers allegedly responded: "I did a Google search for 'travel companion,' and he came up on that. I contacted him."

New Times then said they asked whether Rekers found him on RentBoy.com or not. The newspaper said that after a long silence, Rekers said: "I don't know if it was or not."

LSN contacted Rekers twice by e-mail last Friday to get his version. He wrote in response that Roman was “recommended to me for my travel assistant by an acquaintance I trusted,” an explanation that appears to contradict what he told the New Times, assuming that the Times quoted him accurately.

Rekers added that he regretted “not taking more time to do a more thorough background check” on Roman before hiring him in retrospect.

“When I talked to him before the trip as a possible assistant, when describing his past work experience as a travel companion, he told me that he had recently worked as a companion to a foreign visitor to another state for numerous weeks,” said Rekers. “He further volunteered that it was purely a social companionship and not sexual. In addition to having relevant experience, he was also fluent in Spanish and could serve as an interpreter in Spain.”

Rekers then said that he “searched his name on the Internet (with Google, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) and did not find any negative information about him before the trip.”

In an e-mail sent to LSN today, Rekers addressed the apparent conflict between the Miami New Times account and the one he gave to LSN.

Rekers said that before the scandal broke in the media, the New Miami Times reporter, “called with a very accusatory tone, and asked me about how I found my travel assistant. He seemed to have his mind made up, and did not give me time for a full explanation, before interrupting and ending the call with insufficient time for me to respond fully."

“I had started to try to explain that I made multiple attempts to find an assistant including making a Google search and asking others, and never had the chance to complete my thoughts. He did not give me time to complete my response that my Google search ran into several dead ends in terms of finding someone in my needed time frame. The Miami New Times reporter never interviewed me at any length and terminated that call prematurely before I could make full explanation.”

LSN had requested that Rekers speak to us on the record, but he responded: “Because this has become a legal matter concerning defamation, I have been advised not to grant the interview you requested to more fully explain at this time.

Why the "kidney donor" argument against fetal rights doesn't work

Everybody bookmark this post from Real Choice.

The attempted parallel fails on several levels:

1. A fetus in the womb isn't a stranger.

2. Pregnancy isn't some flukey thing that happens out of the blue; we know what causes it.

3. Pregnancy isn't permanent.

4. Abortion isn't letting somebody die who was moribund anyway; it's causing the violent death of somebody who would likely have lived a long life otherwise.

There's more GO READ IT.

Maclean's weights in on The Armageddon Factor

Exactly:

But McDonald is out to fit data to conclusions, not the other way around. She calls Harper’s tendency to end speeches with “God bless Canada” an “aberration,” and explicitly contrasts such gaudy godliness with the styles of Pierre Trudeau and Lester Pearson. Really? Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution Act recognizes “the supremacy of God” in its first line. When the Maple Leaf flag first flew in 1965, Pearson said the day would be remembered “if our nation, by God’s grace, endures a thousand years.” Which nation? “A land of decent God-fearing people,” Pearson said, before concluding, “God bless Canada!”

People who believe in God and vote their beliefs often work hard. That makes them a potent ingredient in any political coalition anywhere. They win some and lose some. Always have, always will. These days they win more than they used to. They still lose a lot. A keen eye for the real weight of things will come in handy, if someone ever tells their story.

Paul Wells also says:

First, it’s irresponsible to write a book about a phenomenon that systematically overstates the extent of that phenomenon. All the more so if you adopt a constant tone of near-panic.

(...)

Which leads us to the second, bigger problem: McDonald nowhere specifies which religious attitudes, or which secular policies derived from religious attitudes, she finds unacceptable. Bill Blaikie ran for the NDP leadership on a platform explicitly derived from the social gospel; is that OK? McDonald quotes Scarborough Liberal MP John McKay saying he finds the Harper gang scary. Wow. Really? Why? What are the specific differences between John McKay’s okay Christian nationalism and Dave Quist’s scary terrifying Christian nationalism? ‘Cause it was kind of hard to tell the difference during the Commons vote on abortion in international development assistance.

PICTURES: March for Life 2010 (Part 4 of 4)

Fr. Tony Van Hee... a pro-life stalwart.

With all the hoopla surrounding the publication of The Armageddon Factor...

...Has any journalist thought to interview Charles McVety, Faytene Kryskow, and other figures in the Religious Right?

Is this another instance of media bias?

And to my pro-life readers: have any of you ever even heard of "Christian Nationalism" before the publication of this book?

Armageddon it

Professor John Stackhouse comments on Marci McDonald's book The Armageddon Factor:

McVety + Krystow doth not a Religious Right make, and it’s simply ridiculous to compare them with genuine heavy hitters like Falwell and Robertson were even at the start of their respective campaigns, let alone what they became later.

That's the sense I get from the book. I admit it, I didn't read it! I want to. Just don't have time right now, and I don't really want to pay for it. I might check to see if the library will be getting it.

---

UPDATE:

Just wanted to add this bit from Brian Lilley about Marci McDonald's book:

Instead she spends an inordinate amount of time detailing the lives and work of two people in particular, Charles McVety of Canada Christian College and Faytene Kryskow of 4MyCanada, an evangelical youth group aimed at getting young Christians active in public life. To McDonald, these two are the face and muscle behind a growing and scary network in Ottawa aimed at turning Canada into a Christian country governed by theocracy. Whatever influence these Christian Crusaders have, if any, is vastly overstated throughout the book.

I'm sure that Charles McVety and Faytene Kryskow are influential.

But their "clientele" is really small.

I know of no one who subscribes to the End Times theology that Marci McDonald describes in their book.

My religious right is populated mostly with Catholics. I'd say the biggest player in the Religious Right as this time is Lifesite News. At any rate, it's pretty huge in my universe. I don't hear anything about them. To me, they're far more responsible for the galvanization of the Religious Right than Faytene Kryskow (notwithstanding her excellent work.)

I also think that in the age of the Internet, American websites do just as much as Canadian websites to galvanize Canadians into caring about the issues. I'm more in tune with Fr. Frank Pavone than Charles McVety.

So far what I've read of her book just does not ring true with me.

PICTURES: March for Life 2010 (Part 3)

I believe that's MP Dan McTeague on the left.

Tim Bloedow who publishes ChristianGovernment.ca

Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes talking to CTV News

PICTURES: March for Life 2010 (Part 2)

David MacDonald was once again providing entertainment at the March. I can't remember the name of the young woman on his left. Sorry!

Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes speaking with some students from Ottawa Students for Life.

PICTURES: March for Life 2010 (Part 1)

 Phil Lees, Leader of the Family Coalition Party

More pictures tomorrow. The video will take a while-- I have a lot of editing to do.

The Religious Left: Useful Idiots of Militant Secularists

Rick Hiebert, a religious lefty, blogs about religion in the public square. From Brian Lilley's blog, he takes a quote from Marci McDonald's book The Armageddon Factor:

On page 352 of her book the author chastises the Liberals and NDP for reaching out to religious voters who tilt the left politically. Specifically McDonald takes issue with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff tapping long time MP and Evangelical, John McKay, to reach out to faith groups that used to vote for the Liberals but have left the party. The NDP’s decision to bring about a faith and justice caucus is wrong in McDonald’s eyes.

“Rather that creating a riposte to the religious right, they may simply have pre-empted their parties’ ability to critique the increasing Christianization of the public square. If so, they are helping to ensure that religion remains an irrevocable force in Canadian politics, regardless of whether Stephen Harper is tossed out of office.”

Rick comments:

I don’t think that people who fear the Christian right mean this. Surely, those who conduct politics in a Christlike and non-extremist way would be welcome.

(...)

McDonald can’t mean that any Christian wanting to be active in politics should be discouraged, can she? Surely she means only the extremist right? And they wouldn’t join the NDP or Liberals.

No, Rick, when militant secularists say they don't want religion in the public square, they truly mean ALL religion. It matters not whether you are left-wing or right-wing. At this point in the game, religious lefties are useful idiots and allowed to feel good about their contribution.

The moment they dissent from their secular fellow travellers, they will be thrown under the bus.

An Encounter with the Right Honourable Joe Clark at the March for Life

Patricia Maloney tells of her celebrity run-in at the March for Life:

And last but not least, the Best quote of the day comes from former Prime Minister Joe Clarke. As we were heading into 240 Sparks St. to get a bite to eat we traversed through Holt Renfrew when we saw him. The three of us introduced ourselves, and Mr. Clark, always the politician asked us where we were from and where were we going. We told him we were going to the Pro-Life March. You know, the one against abortion? He started to look kind of uncomfortable and he said to us: "We're not going to have this debate right here" and he was gone.

I should have asked him, when would be a good time to have this debate? How about my people call your people?

I just thought that was funny.

Abortion Debate....What Abortion Debate?

Edward Michael George vents his spleen on the left's discovery of an alleged culture war re: the publication of Marci McDonadl's book on the Christian Right:

The abortion debate was it then? We've never had one, and we're still not having it. What we are having is a bunch of hysterics saying that even entertaining the prospect of one already constitutes a war. (Which is insane, by the way.) The very few commentators willing merely to point out that an unbelievably large number of Canadians' views on abortion don't actually conform with the current (non-existent) law risk professional pariahdom if they do.


(...)

Culture war my ass. This is a story about the sort of people who would pretend that such a conflict does (or could) exist where it doesn't (and couldn't) for reasons either of cynical political advantage or existential boredom.

He's right that we talk more about the abortion debate than about the issue itself.

Canada has abortion laws. No it's true!

Says pro-abort newspaper article.

Canada does have federal abortion laws — as well as provincial laws that primarily determine access to abortions. Hospitals and some clinics perform abortions up to 20 weeks. Only a few abortions are performed over 20 weeks and are usually done to protect the woman’s physical health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities.

And what, per se, are those laws? What are their names? Please enlighten us.

Do you get the feeling that a lot of grassroots poor-choicers are clueless about the abortion issue?

Read Chapter One of Marci McDonald's Book on the Canadian Religious Right

Link here.

The book's title is "The Rise of Christian Nationalism" in Canada. I think the book seems to conflate Dominionists with ANYONE on the Christian right.

I think the author didn't figure out if this book was really about Dominionists OR the Religious Right.

If it is about the latter, you can't say it's about the rise of Christian Nationalism.

I don't even know what Christian Nationalism is. I'm not a Dominionist.

I'm also annoyed at how the author reads too much into things.

For instance:

For nearly three years, Harper succeeded in keeping his attendance at East Gate Alliance under wraps, and when Lloyd Mackey finally broke the story, most of his press-gallery colleagues were stunned. Some speculated the Conservative leader must have been dragged there by his gregarious, motorcycle-riding spouse, but the opposite was true. Laureen Teskey had grown up in Alberta’s Turner Valley watching her mother’s growing obsession with a fundamentalist sect drive a wedge in her parents’ marriage, and she now gave religion a wide berth. She seldom set foot in East Gate and Buitenwerf claimed never to have met her. “She’s not interested in spiritual things,” Deborah Grey confirms.

For Harper, it was yet another reason to keep his faith to himself. After all, some ultra-conservative evangelicals believe in “headship”—the notion that, as the biblically anointed head of his household, a husband has every right to march his helpmate straight to the pews, or anywhere else. Owning up to his solo attendance at East Gate Alliance might raise awkward questions with a constituency that already had suspicions about whether Harper was really one of their own.

She draws that conclusion without proof. And it's not an airtight inference.

Did anyone question the people at Eastgate? Would that be something they would really think? Does Harper really believe in an Evangelical idea of "headship" (somehow I doubt it). You're expected to take Marci McDonald at her word.

The Fetus During an Abortion: The Elephant in the Room

Steph wrote a post at Abortion Gang in an attempt to dispel the misconceptions about what happens during an abortion.

She starts off:

How many times have you heard antis say, “if only she knew what happens during an abortion, she wouldn’t do it!” I hardly think that’s the case. Most abortion clinics review what happens in the procedure with a patient beforehand, giving her ample time to ask questions and voice her concerns. For anyone curious about what exactly it is that we say, here’s abortion procedure 101.

And then there's a fairly sterile description of what happens during abortions, focusing on what happens to the woman.

And it's not even terribly real-world at that. It's pretty clinical. To the point of being misleading. Consider the description of the medical/chemical abortion.

This process may take anywhere form 2-9 days in which a woman may experience cramping and bleeding similar to a heavy period.

Sounds reassuring, huh? Except if you followed the story of Angie the Atheist, the woman who live-tweeted her abortion, it didn't quite go off like that. She had to return a few times before her abortion process began, and she took quite a few painkillers to ease the pain. And she had to do all that while taking care of her kid.

This wouldn't exactly put my mind at ease. In fact, I know of another case of a chemical abortion that was rather traumatic.

Clinical information is nothing like real life.

But aside from the issue of what happens to the woman, the information Steph gives SAYS NOTHING about the fetus.

As if the concerns about what happens to the fetus are ancillary.

In describing the first trimester abortion, she says:

A canula, which is a straw-like tube, is inserted through her vagina, through her cervix, and into her uterus, and the pregnancy is removed.

First of all, you can't "remove" a pregnancy. A pregnancy is a state. You're removing a fetus (or several) along with placenta and other "products of conception".

It's like these pro-aborts don't have a clue about the real nature of the debate: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FETUS?

Then Steph writes with irony:

If a woman decides to have an abortion, medical information will not intimidate her. In fact, many clinics encourage women to gather all the information they can before the procedure so that clinic staff can address questions and concerns. We don’t hide information from women, we provide it to them, and empower them to make informed decisions about their bodies and their future.

You have to scoff at the unintentional humour. Provide the information? You describe an abortion without mentioning what happens to the fetus-- as if that wasn't part of the debate, or part of a lot of women's concerns-- and you claim to provide information?

What a joke.

Then, the icing on the cake. One of the commenters to this post wrote:

As long as people won’t research what an abortion actually is, the movement against it will always exist. Sadly.

She said it with a straight face!

Like the issue of the moral status of the fetus was of no concern.

This is why eventually the abortion rights movement will putter out. They can't address the real issues. You can't keep people in the dark forever. Especially not in this age.

VIDEO: Swedish cartoonist attacked by Muslims

QUOTE:

Stockholm News was present when the artist Lars Vilks was attacked today during a speech he held at Uppsala university. The theme for the speech was that "art can not be anything but cruel"

Vilks is controversial after portraying Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed on animals’ bodies. He has also drawn an image of a Jewish person as a pig. A couple of years ago ha drew the Prophet Mohammed on a dog’s body which led to death threats from Muslim extremists.

Today’s speech was almost an hour delayed because of long queues and airport-like security measures. All bags were checked and bodies and clothes scanned with metal detectors. Already half an hour before the speech started; one could sense that something could happen. Some people screamed in a very aggressive way at Vilks when he went out to check the premises.

During the first minutes of the speech Vilks showed other controversial pieces of arts, for example a picture of Jesus on the cross, lowered in urine. He also talked about people in for example Poland who have been prosecuted for art that provocted religious people.

It was when Vilks started to show a film by the Iranian artist Sooreh Hera, where the Prophet Mohammed went to a gay bar that some people started to yell. After a couple of minutes one person ran to the stage and hit Vilks in the head. Then the turmoil started. Several people ran towards the stage and at least one more person managed to attack Vilks. Lars Vilks is not reported to be seriously injured. A police officer was also abused and two people have been arrested.

For a few minutes it was a bit chaotic before the police got a grip of the situation and asked people to leave. The rest of the speech could not be held. When that was announced, about 30-40 people started to cheer and sing, obviously happy that the meeting had been stopped. It was a shame for many reasons. Whatever one thinks about this kind of arts, the promised question time after the speech would have been very interesting.

---

VIDEO:

Abortion Supporters: They Don't Get It

Shayna wrote a post at Abortion Gang about how much it costs to raise children.

And how it's ludicrous to force a woman to bear the cost of these children if she doesn't want them.

She asks:

What is the wisdom in forcing someone who does not want a child to have one? To force someone who does not have the huge amount of money it takes to raise a child, to have one?

Abortion supporters act like the pro-lifer's problem is that women aren't forced and that the proposed solution is to force women.

And they are completely mystified about what possesses pro-lifers to force a woman.

It's like they can't discern the metaphorical elephant in the room: the fetus.

Oh sure, they might say why would we force a woman to bear a fetus. That's about as far as the discernment goes.

It seems that they think that if they don't acknowledge the actual point being debated maybe it'll go away.

What could possibly motivate pro-lifers to compel women to carry an unwanted, unloved, undesirable fetus (as if women had the right to not love their offspring).

Maybe it's because the alternative is that...a human being is killed?

Gee, you think that might have something to do with it, Shayna?

...And not the conspiracy theories about "anti-choicers" trying to force women into unwanted maternity?

Did you ever notice that when their opponents' stated intentions are rhetorically inconvenient, leftists invent ulterior motives for their opponents?

Like if people don't like Obama's policies because it can be shown to lead to the bankruptcy of the American government, it can't really be about basic math-- the underlying motive MUST be racism. Because it's impossible to question progressive ideas on their own merits. Progressive ideas are infallible and logically airtight, therefore they cannot be questioned!

And when abortion supporters address the issue of abortion from any angle other than that of the fetus, that is what they do. They assume that they real motive for opposing abortion could not be a heartfelt concern for the human rights of unborn children.

It's really about forced maternity. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Any reading of the issue that might give credence to the pro-life position-- even to suggest that they are sincere is verboten.

This is among the many reasons why feminists will eventually lose the abortion battle.

They are completely unable to discern the debate honestly and objectively. Perhaps some professional feminists involved in the debate might be able to. But not 99% of the feminists out there. And their inability to understand the debate will be their downfall because the people in the middle will come to see they are full of crap when it comes their analysis of the question and their opponents. The feminists will not be able to counter-argue effectively because they are in essence unable to counter-argue. So far, every attempt I've seen to counter pro-life focus on fetal rights has come back to the same "focus on the woman" approach that does nothing to really address the unborn child.

And there's a reason for that, too: because they know that if they engage pro-lifers on their own turf, they will lose.

The only other recourse they have is to frame pro-lifers as "crazies" and hope the stigma stops people from taking our ideas seriously. The problem with that is that when pro-life arguments are presented articulately, rationally, logically, forcefully but with aplomb, it's tough to peg their adherents as "crazies". When you words and your actions don't match the label, in the long run, the label is not going to fit.

I normally don't openly give advice to my opponents. But I'm confident in this case they won't take it. And even if they do, the days of legal abortion are numbered. It may take a long time to establish fetal rights, but it's the only logical, compassionate conclusion to the abortion battle.

U OF C FINDS PRO-LIFE STUDENTS GUILTY AFTER CLOSED-DOOR HEARINGS

May 10th, 2010: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U OF C FINDS PRO-LIFE STUDENTS GUILTY AFTER CLOSED-DOOR HEARINGS,
VOWS "MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS" FOR FUTURE PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES

CALGARY - The University of Calgary has notified eight members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) student group that they have been found guilty of a major violation under the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy regarding a pro-life display held last month. The verdict comes one week after the students each attended individual, closed-door hearings with an Associate Vice-Provost during which legal representatives were disallowed.

The verdict is "a formal written warning" that if the students "fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the future" it will "result in more severe sanctions," said Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton, who was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict.

"We are going to challenge this verdict," stated Alanna Campbell, CPL President. "We did not break a single University bylaw or regulation and so we will defend ourselves accordingly. We will also not cease exercising our rights to free speech just because they're threatening us. I'd rather be expelled as a principled person than graduate a coward."

Last month, after having set up a pro-life display on campus for the ninth time since 2006, members of the group were notified that they were being charged with a 'Major Violation' under Section 4.10 of the University of Calgary's Non-Academic Misconduct Policy for "failure to comply with a Campus Security officer or University official in legitimate pursuit of his/her duties" when asked to turn their signs inward or leave campus.

In Houghton's decision, she referenced the university's demand that the students failed to comply with: "Signs that welcomed viewers and signs that identified your group as an anti-abortion display could remain outward facing but signs with the actual content of your display must face away from walkways. or any other areas in which persons on campus would have little choice but to look at your display."

"That's blatant content-based discrimination," said Peter Csillag, CPL Vice-President (Internal). "Why weren't abortion advocates, or Falun Gong supporters, forced to place their messages inwards when they protested on campus? You can't have debate if everyone is pointed inwards on themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this verdict against us pro-lifers is not legitimate, and it reveals U of C to be an institute of censorship and double standards-not of higher learning."

In 2006 and 2007, during the first four displays of the Genocide Awareness Project(GAP) on campus, the University defended the students' right to expression under the Charter, but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.

"This recent hearing and result is just another step in a long history of intimidation and censorship and if they think we'll step down as the result of it then they're sorely mistaken," stated Cameron Wilson, CPL Vice-President (External).

The group's pro-life display, called the Genocide Awareness Project, has been held on the University of Calgary grounds without incident nine times since 2006. The display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. In 2009, the University charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the Crown Prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November of 2009. Since then, members of Campus Pro-Life have been threatened with Non-Academic Misconduct upon each display, but only now has the University carried out its threats, beginning with this formal warning.

"We've been informed that there are a lot of possible punishments involved, ranging from warnings to expulsion," stated Cristina Perri, CPL Secretary. "There's nothing they can do to us individually that compares to what hundreds of unborn children encounter each day in our country."

[Phone numbers omitted]

Feminist: "Abortion is more threatened than ever before in Canada,"

SHRIEEEEEEEEEEK!

ABORTION IS THREATENED! ABORTION IS THREATENED ABORTION IS THREATENED!

Not a single law has been passed. There's no majority pro-life government. Harper doesn't want the debate.

BUT OH MY GOD ABORTION IS THREATENED IN CANADA!

Except:

Patrice Powers, a director with the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said Harper was in no position to revisit abortion law in Canada but wanted to push his ideology abroad -- on safer territory -- through his G8 maternal health initiative.

"We know that Harper is afraid of pro-choice forces in Canada," said Powers.

"He doesn't want to do anything in his own country. He wants to send a message to the electorate."

So which is it: Harper is afraid of Pro-choice forces and so abortion isn't threatened--

Or is Harper trying to make his so-con base happy and abortion is threatened.

Damn, these feminists can't seem to make up their minds.

Worker at Marie Stopes Clinic does illegal abortion on Ugandan Woman

And almost kills her.

Bonus: Pregnancy test was negative!

It seems that this woman was duped into this procedure.

Abortion is a shady business.

New Study “Follows the Money” of Abortion

One possible pro-life law that could come from this is the banning of all products made from fetal cells, as well as the act of injecting fetal cells. All those who commit these crimes would be subject to fine or imprisonment.

Watch the feminists freak at the bill.

The Calculus of Supporting Legal Abortion

A woman who has experienced various aspects of pregnancy describes how it has made her more "pro-choice".

In some ways, she was right. I thought more and more about my assumptions I had regarding abortion. The longer I was pregnant, the more I experienced what a joy my child would be, and how happy and complete she would make my family.

But lets be honest. Pregnancy is hard. It is uncomfortable. It is awkward. It is painful, emotional, exhausting and often vomit-inducing. I was able to work through all of those bad times, which, again, is a majority of pregnancy, knowing that this is what I needed to do to have the addition to the family we wanted so badly.

I couldn’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to have to experience all of those moments – the sickness, fatigue, elbows and feet in my bladder, or the even worse issues I managed to avoid like diabetes, preeclampsia, or even bed rest, all while not wanting the child that was living inside of you. To be forced to go through the pain, the stress and the sickness not out of joy, but because you had to, because someone else made that decision for you, because someone else wanted that baby and that person’s opinion, wants and needs mattered more to the world than what you wanted for yourself.

Okay so let get this straight.

The experience of being sick, being kicked, being inconvenienced by pregnancy-- and God knows *I've* been there--

justifies:

1) not wanting the child within you-- have you noticed how abortion supporters let people off the hook as to whether they are allowed or to love the child in the womb?

And

2) Killing a the "child living inside of you".

Morning sickness trumps human life.

This is not to say that it's a piece of cake. But just because your life is made hard doesn't give you the right to kill. Just because something is a burden doesn't mean you have the right to kill. Just because you are inconvenienced or made uncomfortable doesn't give you the right not to care about that other human being inside of you, and love him and at least try to do what's best for that being.

This statement horrifies feminists. The truth is: they do not give a *** about the right to life. They don't care that another human being has to die in the name of their ideology. Autonomy is all that matters to them, and if someone else has to suffer because of it, well tough luck, fetus, you gotta die if your incubator says so.

Human life is banal in their eyes. An embryo just a blob of cells, right? The only recourse they have to justify their ideology is pure materialism. But they don't realize that in reducing the fetus to cells and chemical reactions, they in turn reduce us ALL to cells and chemical reactions and in turn dehumanize our selves. Humans are no longer special, just a bundles of needs and desires fueled by some chemical reactions.

It's a sick worldview. And many don't understand it's implicit in their conception of the human being.

Hormonal Birth Control Pill Reduces Women’s Sexual Function: Study

Hoo yeah, sexual liberation, baby!

BC Poor Choicers define "harassment"

The one I held in my hands was the same report, but with no censored material. It didn’t really add a lot of information to what we already knew. For example, we knew early on that the mandate of the Criminal Harassment Unit had been hijacked by the nice folks in the provincial attorney-general’s office. Originally, the unit was to look at all matters of “harassment” surrounding the abortion wars in B.C. Annoyance at this mandate meant that the unit was not being focused enough on where Big Abortion thought it should be, so pressure was brought down to steer things in the “right” direction.

Read more here for juicy details.

Retired Canadian Lawyer...Conceived in Rape

Here is the fascinating testimony of retired lawyer and blogger Dahn Batchelor:

My mother was raped in January 1933 and as a result, I was born in October of that year. I wasn’t aborted and I didn’t end up dead on a rubbish heap and my mother didn’t abandon me. Had I been disposed of as a dead infant like thousands of infants who had mothers around the world who had unwanted pregnancies, certain events in history would not have occurred. For example, it was I that proposed in a UN crime conference in 1980 that a bill of rights for young offenders be created. That bill of rights was adopted by the UN five years later and has an effect on the lives of millions of children world-wide. It was I that suggested at a crime conference in Canada that Legal Aid should have 24-hour duty counsel on call so that anyone arrested in Canada at any time of the day or night has access to free legal advice while in the police station. I am mentioning these two events to point out that all human beings have some role to play in our society and shouldn’t be killed as infants simply because they are unwanted.

It’s ironic when you think about it. Many years ago I was driving home on a motor scooter early in the morning. I was on a highway heading south towards Toronto and the moon was out so I turned off my headlight as the moon lit up the countryside. Up ahead, I saw about a mile away, a turn in the highway. I remembered that turn when I was heading northward days earlier. There was a cliff at the beginning of the turn. Suddenly I saw a bright light in my face and heard the blaring of a loud horn. I stopped my motor scooter and much to my horror, I discovered that I had driven the mile towards the cliff while I was asleep. My eyes were open while I was driving towards the cliff but I was totally unconscious as to where I was or what I was doing. It was no different than sleepwalking.

A truck driver stopped his rig and he called out and asked me if I was alright. I told him I was so he climbed back into his rig and drove away. I realized that it was his headlights that flashed before me and his horn that I heard. He obviously saw me heading towards the cliff rather than continuing on the turn. If he hadn’t been at that location at that precise moment and warned me of what I was doing, I would have driven off the cliff and been killed. If that had happened, none of what I had accomplished after that would have come about. What is ironic about this event is that the truck driver has no idea that his actions had an effect on the lives of millions of children around the world who are protected by the UN bill of rights for young offenders. Had he been aborted or killed as an unwanted baby and discarded onto a garbage heap, I would have been killed that fateful night and nothing I did after that would have occurred.

I have said it before and I will continue saying. Everyone’s life has an effect on the lives of other people. If you doubt that, then ask yourself this rhetorical question; “Would I exist today if my mother or my father were killed as an infant because they were unwanted?”

But you know, if he had died...so what? He would have been unconscious. Isn't that the way many argue...as if the morality of an action depends solely on whether or not the target knows about it?

Women will not be silenced!

Says pro-abort Andrea Horvath

Except if you belong to a pro-life group and want to argue that abortion kills a human being. In that case, feminists will do the silencing themselves!

Accused Catholic priests left in legal limbo

From NCR:

The Catholic church has been castigated in recent months for moving slowly to remove abusers from the priesthood. Pope Benedict XVI himself, while he was a cardinal in charge of a Vatican office that handled abusive clergy, stalled for years before moving to defrock serial child molesters in the U.S., according to documents recently made public.

But the Vatican moves just as slowly, if not slower, to return innocent clergy to ministry, according to priests and canon lawyers. Meanwhile, priests like Selvaraj live for years in a state of limbo, evicted from parishes and rectories, prohibited from presenting himself as a priest or administering sacraments, and branded all but guilty in the public eye.

As many as 300 American priests claim innocence and are waiting for the Vatican to restore them to duty, according to Fr. Michael Sullivan, a Minnesota priest and member of Justice for Priests and Deacons, an independent group of canon lawyers who defend Catholic clergy.

(...)

But some priests say the get-tough rules approved by U.S. bishops in 2002 swing the pendulum too far in the other direction, trampling their rights to due process and good reputations. Where once abuse victims were silenced and sacrificed for the sake of the church, they say, now innocent priests are overlooked casualties of the crisis.

(...)

False accusations are rare, according to a 2004 study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Just 1.5 percent of 5,681 sex abuse allegations lodged against Catholic priests from 1950-2002 were deemed false after investigations. Clergy advocates say bogus accusations ballooned after 2002, especially after secular courts began awarding huge settlements to victims.

Judy Rebick wants abortion to be an election issue

Quote:

Some women in this discussion express a fear that abortion could become an election issue. Harper knows as well as I do that the vast majority of Canadians are pro-choice. If abortion is an election issue, he will lose the election. So to that I say, bring it on.

Just because most people support legal abortion doesn't mean that Canadians want it to be an election issue.

I can see Harper's response a mile away: I and most Canadians don't want to talk about abortion. We want to talk about the economy.

And as Layton and Ignatieff fumble through this topic, Harper will win a majority.

Ignatieff tried the abortion vote grab. As long as Harper does NOTHING about abortion-- he's safe. And that's what he's going to do.

I love how men are an afterthought to the abortion movement

I had a good laugh when I read this post at The Abortion Gang.

Lately there has been talk about engaging men in the abortion movement. For years, abortion advocates have told men that abortion is none of their business, and their only role is to support a woman's choice.

Now that the abortion movement is losing steam, feminists are looking for allies:

So maybe instead of discrediting men as a gender, we should focus on the real problem – changing the ideology of anti-choicers. Anti-Choicers have already embraced the role of men in this never-ending debate, so why should we short ourselves the potential allies? Maybe instead we should mine the creativity, research, and other intelligent offerings of pro-choice men. In a fight for something this important, can we really afford to say no to any help offered?

So maybe instead of discrediting men as a gender...

Yeah, you just woke up to that realization that it's a bad thing...only because abortion is on the ropes in the States?

And you don't think men will see right through that insincere opportunism?

...that you're using them only to maintain that white knuckle grip on legal abortion?

...and that they won't want to have their input about their feelings regarding abortion and their experiences with it, both positive and negative?

Really?

And then they're all shocked when feminism is described as a form of gender supremacy.

When support for abortion drops about another 10 per cent, they'll be revisiting their attitudes towards men and abortion. "Gee, maybe the fact women are the only ones who get pregnant doesn't mean they can't have an opinion."

Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion
Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament, says she is ready to debate abortion with anyone

May 4, 2010. Calgary. In response to Dr. Hedy Fry’s claim that the abortion debate is unnecessary in Canada, one of her former patients is publicly challenging her to discuss the issue – a patient cared for by Dr. Fry in-utero and beyond.

Yesterday, Fry, Member of Parliament from Vancouver Centre, stated that she was ready to debate abortion with anyone but that the debate was not necessary in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about-the-debate.html).

“She obviously hasn’t paid attention to what’s going on at universities recently,” said Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray cited student groups across the country engaging in the debate: “Pro-life students are being censored, banned and even charged for trespassing on their own schools,” said Gray. “That doesn’t sound like a dead debate to me.”

Gray said she herself, and members of her staff, have faced great resistance from abortion advocates attempting to shut their presentations down—and even successfully doing so at some schools. But this doesn’t discourage her.

“The fact that we’re being invited to speak at schools at all means that the debate isn’t over. There’s a growing movement of young people who are saying that it is undemocratic for Canadians of one generation to close the debate on such an important topic for all Canadians.”

Gray, whose own mother was a patient of Dr. Fry when she was pregnant with her, says a new generation of Canadians who weren’t old enough to vote when abortion was debated in the 1980’s, are demanding that their voice be heard now.

“If Dr. Fry is truly prepared to debate anyone on abortion then I would be glad to take her up on that challenge,” said Gray. “The fact that there are people of my generation who are willing and able to talk about the great injustice happening to the unborn means that the debate is not only necessary but that it something Canadians want to hear.”

Gray said she sent Fry’s office an invitation for her to participate in a public debate and will await her response.

For more information, please contact:
Stephanie Gray, 403-200-0777 (cell) or sgray@unmaskingchoice.ca


OPEN LETTER

May 4, 2010

Dr. Hedy Fry
Member of Parliament
Vancouver-Centre

Dear Dr. Fry,

I read the May 3 CBC report, “Abortion: The debate about the debate” (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about-the-debate.html) where it referenced you saying, “Fry says she has all her arguments ready and is set to debate anyone on the topic, but she feels it's unnecessary.” I am also aware that in 2008 you were willing to do a debate on abortion at the UBC medical school but the event never went ahead.

I am therefore asking if you’d be willing to debate me in a public forum about abortion?

As a representative of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), I have been speaking and traveling across the country on abortion for over 8 years, which includes many formal debates. In my experience the abortion debate is very alive. And yet, I was intrigued by the aforementioned CBC report that, when reporting on your feeling that the debate is unnecessary, said, “Because the question in Canada is settled; so there's no need to re-examine it.”

From Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of Victoria, pro-life students are reopening the abortion debate on university campuses and are getting national attention for their work. The fact that abortion advocates at those schools feel it is necessary to ban, censor or even threaten with arrest, students for simply protesting abortion or holding debates on abortion tells me that the debate is far from finished. There is a need to re-examine it.

As the former minister for the Status of Women and a medical doctor, I know that you are well aware that in Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion. Moreover, Canadian taxpayers pay for those abortions. In other words, we are all affected by this issue. This is why it is surprising that you would feel the debate is unnecessary.

However, I am glad to know that you are also more than ready to debate anyone on the abortion issue.

When my mom was pregnant with me, you were her medical doctor. And in that sense, and after my birth, you were my doctor too. You may not have been aware then, but the pro-life values of my parents are ones that I advocate now and I would be glad to take you up on your offer of a debate. I would be glad to participate in an uncensored discussion over abortion with you.

For your convenience, perhaps you’d be interested in debating at the University of British Columbia, where I graduated from.

Please feel free to contact us so we can work out the details.

Sincerely yours,

Stephanie Gray
Executive Director

Technical glitches ahead

Hello Readers.

You may experience technical issues as I tinker with my blog. I apologize for the "outage". Thank you for your patience.

Thousands of Women Forcibly Sterilized in Uzbekistan

Bleeeeeeeep!!!

TASHKENT, May 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When doctors told a 28 year-old Uzbek woman that she had been sterilized after her first pregnancy without her knowledge or consent by government order, her husband left her. “Not a day passes without me crying,” said Gulbahor Zavidova. “I was outraged when I found out what they had done. How could they do such a horrible thing without asking me?”

(...)

The Times report told the story of Hidojat Muminova, a 26-year-old cotton picker who said that doctors tricked her into agreeing to surgery, during which she was sterilized.

“They scared me into believing I needed an urgent operation,” she said. “I was surprised as I’d never had any pain but I was worried and agreed to the surgery. When it was over they told me they’d performed a sterilization. I could not stop crying. They tricked me and treated me like an animal.”

If they're doing that, I can't believe they're not doing forced abortions, either. Or that it's not on the agenda.

Tories to ax corporate welfare

This is more like it!

I really hope they stick to the cuts. Stockwell Day, don't disappoint me!

UVic: Pro-Life Students take Legal Action Against their Student Union

PRESS RELEASE

May 3, 2010: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Pro-Life Students take Legal Action Against their Student Union

VICTORIA, B.C., May 3, 2010 ‑ Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), the University of Victoria pro‑life student’s club, today filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court initiating legal proceedings against the University of Victoria Students’ Society (UVSS).

The lawsuit seeks various court orders all to the effect that the UVSS has acted unlawfully in denying YPY club funding since September 2008, and recently upped the ante by refusing to ratify YPY as an official club for the Spring 2010 semester. In addition, the Clubs Policy has now been amended to specifically target pro‑life advocacy.

University of Victoria student, UVSS member, and YPY president, Anastasia Pearse commented:

“We have watched pro‑life student groups throughout the province, and across the country, face the stifling and discriminatory decisions of Student Societies that deny them funding or club status.

Our aims are to promote choices that protect unborn human beings and their mothers from the harm of abortion. We should be granted equal opportunity to share our message.”



The students involved with YPY are members of the University community, which is the very place where controversial topics should be discussed and various sides considered. They recognize that it is their duty to stand up to protect the core value of ideological diversity and the fundamental values at stake in this case including equality and freedom of expression.

The controversy that has sprung up in the media around Prime Minister Harper’s recent announcement that Canada will not fund abortions as part of its G8 child and maternal health‑care initiative for developing countries, demonstrates that abortion is still a live issue for debate. Pearse highlights, “To debate is to engage with opposing ideas and in order to fully engage, we must be free to express opposing views respectfully without censure.”

Joseph Arvay of the Vancouver based firm Arvay Finlay is acting for Youth Protecting Youth.

Antonia Zerbisias laments cuts to feminist groups

She reports on Bread n Roses:

It is depressing to me that the media will just use this Nancy Ruth story to paint a picture of some sort of shrill and vulgar woman. Meanwhile they will ignore the fact that these groups have been defunded by HarperCons (CIDA and SOW) just in the past 2 weeks:

1. Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
2.CERA (Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation);
3.Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail (around for 25 years)
4.New Brunswick Pay Equity Coalition,
5. le Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec,
6.Alberta Network of Immigrant Women,
7.Centre de documentation sur l’éducation des adultes et la condition feminine,
8.Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale (AFEAS),
9.Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH) (a 75-member coalition primarily of first stage emergency shelters for abused women.)

The thing is, that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of tax-funded feminist groups.

Senator Nancy Ruth Tells It Like It Is-- OH YEAH!

Oh my goodness, a politician who tells it like it is:

Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth told a meeting of international women's equality rights groups Monday morning that it would be best for them to "shut the f--k up" about their concerns over the government's maternal health initiative.

Ruth sponsored the meeting on Parliament Hill, in which groups such as the Association for Women's Rights in Development, Action Aid International and Action Canada for Population and Development participated in a panel discussion questioning Canada's leadership in the promotion of gender equality and women's rights.

With the recent controversy about the government's plans to omit funding for abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries, the panelists said it was an issue they couldn't ignore at today's meeting.

However, during the question and answer period, Ruth advised the room that pushing the abortion issue was not the right strategy if they really wanted progress on the maternal health issue. Her comments were caught on tape by the Toronto Star.

"We've got five weeks or whatever left until the G8 starts. Shut the f--k up on this issue," she says. "If you push it, there'll be more backlash. This is now a political football. This is not about women's health in this country."

If only more women in politics would stand up to these feminists! My dream come true!

Why The Pill Sucks

Read here.

You can't play with a women's hormonal system and not expect to screw it up.

Time to quash the feminist monopoly on "women's health"

This magazine wonders:

What are our women in government here for?

One would hope one part of their role would be to champion women’s health—and all that brings along.

Don't you just hate the way leftists assume that the job of elected women is to push for abortion, as if they couldn't possibly have any other opinion?

Hey feminists, women are not your ideological lapdogs.

CBC shows fair report on U of C pro-lifers

But you'll have to watch it on Facebook.

The CBC made the university look like a bunch of meanies for censoring their students.

VIDEO: Heart and Stroke Foundation Commercial

This is a Heart and Stroke Foundation Commercial that is often shown on the CBC. (In the last half hour, I've seen it at least three times.)

Wow. Pro-life PR and we didn't have to pay for it. ;)

What I don't get about this commercial is that when you look at it at first, you think you're looking at an ultrasound. But if you look closely, you'll see that the baby has what looks like a band around his wrist-- the kind you get when you're admitted at the hospital. I somehow doubt that that these babies get such tags in utero. So are we looking an ultrasound, or not?

I'd give to this charity, but it has a history of supporting embryonic stem cell research.

In Canada, we talk more about the abortion debate than abortion itself

People like to say that abortion has been in the news. There have been numerous columns recently about Harper's G8 initiative and the abortion debate.

We talk about the debate. Not the procedure itself.

There is mention of "maternal health". And that's great. But what about the unborn child?

As columnists have the debate about the debate, concluding that there will be no debate, I don't see a lot of pro-lifers getting in to explain the abortion procedure, nor to affirm the equality of the unborn child.

No doubt, this mediatic state of affairs is far better than it was ten years ago when no one said anything about this issue. It somewhat represents an ever-so-slight shift to the right. Just an inch. But still.

However, I sense that nobody really wants to get into the nitty-gritty of it all.

I think that one of the problems is that many of the Parliamentary initiatives that touch upon fetal rights only skim the issue around the edges. When you debate coerced abortions, or maternal health initiatives, you're not talking about the deliberate killing of unborn children.

I think that if we're going to have a real abortion debate in this country, we need a member of the Pro-Life Parliamentary caucus to present a bill that goes right to the heart of the matter. I think that a pro-life Liberal MP should present a bill banning the practicing of decapitating and crushing the heads of babies.

Understand that women would still be allowed to have abortions.

But it would be a bill that would give some consideration to the unborn child.

And feminists would have to squirm as they defend what goes on during an abortion.

It'd be fun to watch.

And we would finally get to the heart of the matter: of what happens to the unborn child.

In their little world, feminists make no bones about not giving a crap about fetuses. As Joyce Arthur says "fetuses are not that important".

However, the average Canadian is not like a feminist. They might be shocked to find out how abortions are done.

And for the first time, feminists would have to defend them. Which I don't believe they have ever done in this country.

Now, the bill might lose. However, as a public relations tactic, it could only advance the pro-life cause. Who's going to examine the head-crushing issue and conclude they should be more pro-abortion? Not that many. But a LOT of Canadians will wake up to the reality of abortion for the first time in their lives and not like what they see. Oh, a lot of them might not want to criminalize abortion, or even head-crushing.

But they might decide against it for themselves. Or persuade someone else not to do it. Or not want their tax dollars to pay for it, especially in elective cases.

It's still an uphill legislative battle for us. I have no illusions. But if we keep plugging at it, it will only get better for us. And we'll stop talking about the debate, and start DOING the debate.

We must press on. When you negotiate the price of something, you always set your price high in anticipation that others will attempt to lower the price. I believe it's the same with abortion. Perhaps instead of trying to bargain too low-- going for the lowest common denominator, we should try to address issues that directly address that of fetal rights.