Sunday, January 31, 2010

h/t American Papist

It is quite astonishing that the media continue to ignore the March for Life, which this year drew over 300,000 people, over half of whom were under 30 years of age. Where were the young women? one reporter asked. Obviously he didn't look very far, since the photo he submitted to The Washington Post was a tiny group of five pro-choice protestors.

And Rick Sanchez of CNN wondered out loud "which side there were more of"; obviously he didn't look closely at the crowd. Because it was totally obvious that the handful of pro-choice people were simply that, a handful while the pro-life crowd filled the streets and just kept coming.

The other media story worth noting is the efforts being made by pro-choice advocates to have CBS pull the forthcoming Superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow, a college football superstar, who shares the pro-life story of how his mother refused the medical advice to abort him when she contracted amoebic dysentery in the Phillipines. It looks as if CBS is going to stand firm and air the ad, which has been completely paid for by specific donations to Focus on the Family.

Read more on that story


If CBS airs the ad, good for them since last year the pro-life ad "Imagine the Potential" was not aired during the Superbowl, but has received millions of views on YouTube.

View that ad

Eventually, the mainline media is going to have to give due attention to what is going on in pro-life news, because they are simply getting outnumbered.

I read with interest that this past week, Fox News has surpassed CNN in the number of Americans who trust it to deliver primetime news. Fox has moved into first place, while the other outlets have dropped their ratings as people realise that their reporting is so biased, leaning always toward the left and endorsing the current Democratic government. Listen closely, you will hear the sounds of cracks breaking open the truth. Good news indeed.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Well Worth the Read

Today, I read two articles that are well worth the time it takes to read them.
The first is today's blog on Conversion Diary, a blog by Jennifer Fulwiler. Jennifer converted to Catholicism about 5 years ago, before that she was a total atheist and pro-choicer. I find her thoughts on the abortion issue different and very convincing.

Read The Two Lists here

Here is a snippet:
My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies.... In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman's body.... Abortion wasn't ideal -- even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman's body -- but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one's biology.... In fact, I started to see the catastrophic mistake our society had made when we started believing that the life-giving potential of the sexual act could be safely forgotten about as long as people use contraception. It would be like saying that guns could be used as toys as long as long as there are blanks in the chamber. Teaching people to use something with tremendous power nonchalantly, as a casual plaything, had set women up for disaster.

But don't stop there, read the whole thing. It is refreshingingly sympathetic to women.

The other article is quite a bit longer and chock full of facts and information. It is written by Mary Eberstadt, a writer whom I have come to admire. Two years ago, I read her book Home Alone America, The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes. Over the last year, she has become a frequent contributor to First Things , "an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society".

Her latest article is Christianity Lite - I must admit I had a preconceived notion of what it might be about but it was so much more. Eberstadt traces the watering-down of most mainline religious denominations over the past 70-80 years and she makes this bold statement on the divergence of most Christian denominations from the Catholic Church:

...we can see clearly that these are not the kind of issues that divide the Catholic Church from the churches of Christianity Lite today. As of now—and as has been true for some time—those churches have increasingly defined themselves as dissenting on one issue above all others: They have jettisoned one or another or all of the teachings of traditional Christian sexual morality.

It began, of course, with Henry VIII when he sought divorce and that led to the acceptance of divorce within the Anglican Church (but not for some time, Henry was considered an exception). Then came the acceptance of artificial contraception with the Lambeth Conference in 1930.

In short order, not only was birth control theologically approved in certain difficult circumstances but, soon thereafter, it was regarded as the norm. Nor was that all. In a third turn of the reformist wheel that no one attending Lambeth in 1930 could have seen coming, artificial contraception went on to be sanctioned by some prominent members of the Anglican Communion not only as an option but in fact as the better moral choice.

And then the acceptance of contraception leads to the acceptance of homosexuality. As Robert Runcie, former Archbishop of Canterbury, says:

...once the Church signalled . . . that sexual activity was for human delight and a blessing even if it was divorced from any idea of procreation . . . once you’ve said that sexual activity is . . . pleasing to God in itself, then what about people who are engaged in same-sex expression and who are incapable of heterosexual expression?

So what comes next?
Moreover, as of the December 2009 ordination in Los Angeles of the Episcopal Church’s second noncelibate gay bishop, it is clear that homosexuality’s theological status—like that of contraception before it—is now moving from an option to a religiously approved option. It therefore joins divorce and contraception in the signature religious cycle of Christianity Lite, conferring on a once prohibited sexual practice a theological seal of approval.

Eberstadt concludes:
Does the relaxing of dogma drive people from church, or does the decline in attendance push leaders to relax dogma? As with the previous discussion of dissent, we do not really need to know the answer in all its causal complexity. All we really need to know—as the brilliant convert and teacher Monsignor Ronald Knox observed in an essay some eighty years ago, “The Decline of Dogma and the Decline of Church Membership”—is that “the evacuation of the pew and the jettisoning of cargo from the pulpit” have been going on side by side for as long as Christianity Lite has been attempted. As with doctrinal dissent, it seems, where one appears, the other is sure to follow....
After all, if there is a single point to which modern, enlightened people have been agreeing for a long time now, it is that the antiquated sexual notions of the Catholic Church are an anachronism that had to go for the sake of a kinder, gentler Christianity.
It would be more than passing strange if, at the end of the day, that very anachronism were to turn out to be something that could not be sacrificed after all—not without having everything else fall down, anyway. Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time in Christian history that a piece rejected by the builders turned out to be the cornerstone.

You can read the entire article here

For Mary's previous article on the effect of pornography on modern marriage, click
What Does Woman Want?

and for her incredible article on Humanae Vitae, click
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae

For a list of all Eberstadt's articles, go to First Things and put in Mary Eberstadt in the search box. There are 8 articles listed there, just in case you become a fan, like I am.

Monday, January 25, 2010

The New Face of Pro-Life America

Abby Johnson, aged 29, was the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Bryan/College Station, Texas until she left her job and joined Shawn Carney, aged 27, of the Coalition for Life in that community. Abby had been a volunteer with Planned Parenthood for three years, and then became an employee for five years, because she believed the recruiter at her college who told her that Planned Parenthood saved women from death in back-street abortion clinics. She firmly believed that her work at PP was to help women avoid an unplanned pregnancy. Until October 24 this past fall, when Abby was asked to assist an abortionist in an ultrasound-guided abortion. As Abby held the ultrasound wand on the woman's abdomen, she viewed the 13-week-old fetus on the screen and watched in horror as she saw the perfectly-formed baby attempt to escape the cannula and, then seconds later, that baby "crumpled" and was gone.

Listen to Abby's story here and the second half here

When I first heard about Abby's conversion to pro-life, we were in the middle of our 40 Days for Life vigil here in Halifax and I was, to tell you the truth, apprehensive that it was all too dramatic, that this woman's change of heart was so sudden and complete that I worried it was too good to be true. So, while I rejoiced that she had left Planned Parenthood, I was not overly enthusiastic as I feared that it might not be a real conversion, that she would simply disappear after a while, and that her conversion would simply be forgotten.

Listening to the interview on Focus on the Family, I became convinced that this indeed was the "real thing", that Abby had really had a complete change of heart, and that God is planning on using this young woman in a very big way for the pro-life movement in America.

What is so heartening about this story is Abby's age and the fact that she went to work for Planned Parenthood out of concern for women. And she was a Christian; as Abby says, she helped with abortions on Saturday and, on Sunday, she went to church with her husband and three-year-old daughter. But she was becoming uncomfortable and, as her boss at Planned Parenthood began to request that she book more abortions, because that is where the money was, Abby began to doubt the real motivations behind the "family planning" mandate of Planned Parenthood.

And then, once modern technology revealed to her the reality of what an abortion does to the child in the womb, she knew that she had to leave her job, even if she had no where to go. In tears, in her office, she looked out the window and saw two women praying outside in the 40 Days for Life vigil that was taking place at her PP facility. She heard God say "go to them" and Abby picked up her jacket and purse, got in her car (to walk over to them was just too obvious) and drove across the street to the house that Coalition for Life just bought last spring. She called them on her cell phone and said "do you have a back door? this is Abby from Planned Parenthood". Shawn Carney said that, when he walked in and met her, Abby was in tears and Shawn realised right away that this was a conversion that was just like a Biblical one, and that he had to protect Abby from what might be coming at her. The story is unfolding in a most amazing way and I am so encouraged to hear Abby speak. She has a maturity beyond her years and I believe that God will use her mightily in this time to bring many hearts and minds to the pro-life view that all life from conception is to be protected. As Abby says in the interview "no problem, no pregnancy, is too big for God to handle".

The video gives you a few shots of the March for Life in Washington, DC last Friday. Notice the number of young people, mainly students and young adults. A reporter for the Washington Post went to cover the March and he expected to see a crowd of 60-year-olds, still protesting Roe v Wade which was passed 37 years ago. Instead he found a new generation of activists who are deeply committed to overturning Roe v Wade and who want America to become, once again, a pro-life nation.

Read Robert McCartney's article

"We are the pro-life generation," said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30... Activists who support abortion rights conceded that there's less energy among young people on their side of the debate.... Young people in the March for Life said they thought they were more opposed to abortion than people in their parents' generation because they had more information about the issue, in part because of their education.... "I've seen the pain that abortion causes women," said Michelle Fabian, youth minister of St. Catherine of Siena Church in Lancaster County, Pa. She said her mother still "can't listen to a vacuum cleaner without shuddering" because it reminds her of the equipment used when she had an abortion before Fabian was born.
When feelings run that raw, this issue could stir controversy for 37 years more. - Robert McCartney, Washington Post, Jan 24, 2010

The way things are moving right now, we may not have to wait 37 years.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Supporting life that is fragile

Many of you will already know about baby Isaiah, who was born full term but with oxygen deprivation due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. He was air-lifted to Stollery Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta and placed on a ventilator. However his treating physician declared him brain dead and his parents, Rebecka and Isaac May received a letter from the hospital informing them that their son would be taken off the respirator at 2:00 pm on January 20, 2010 and allowed to die. Rebecka and Isaac hired a lawyer and got an injunction to prevent the hospital from taking Isaiah off the ventilator. The judge has given the parents until Jan 27 to find a physician with expert advice that counters the initial diagnosis that care is futile.

The case has gone international; it has been featured on a New York talk show; and American Life League president Judie Brown will feature the story in her commentary on Monday, Jan 25. Judie has an international readership as she is a member of the Pontifical Council on Life and Family.

Mark Pickup, a blogger who himself suffers from advanced multiple sclerosis and is disabled, has taken up the story and is trying to get the word out as far as possible because this case brings to light what has been going on for quite some time now in hospitals throughout the western world: namely, those whose lives are deemed not to be worth living are given a verdict of death and their only chance at life is ended by the very professionals whom we trust to have healing as their concern.

From Mark's blog:
If the Alberta court sides with the Edmonton hospital's stated intent to kill baby Isaiah, North America will be watching. Good. There has been too much infanticide and euthanasia happening quietly in hospitals across North America. It's time the hush stops! We need to protect disabled and vulnerable people not kill them. If the court sides with killing baby Isaiah, and against his loving parents, it will be time to ask ourselves: What kind of people have we become!?

Rebecka and Isaac May are asking for 90 days to see if Isaiah makes progress. Is that asking too much?! Some people have brought up the expense as reason not to grant a 90 day reprieve for Isaiah. After all, they say, "Alberta's Health Care system is in financial trouble." That's a selective financial concern. We pay for thousands of abortions each year, no questions asked. A woman can have an abortion for any reason what so ever, or no reason at all. She doesn't even need a doctor's referral. Just call up the abortion clinic and make an appointment. She can have as many abortions as she wants. It's all covered at taxpayers' expense. Millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars are spent each year for abortion on demand! Don't tell me we can't afford to care for a sick baby boy by the name of Isaiah James May.

Medicine and health care are supposed to be life affirming not life denying. Remember, history ultimately judges societies based upon how they treated their weakest and most vulnerable people.


I ask readers of this blog to contact the Stollery Children's Hospital to let them know you expect that world class facility to do the right thing and give baby Isaiah May 90 more days to improve before removing his respirator. That's not asking too much of the hospital. Call the hospital at (780)342-8080. Email the treating physician Dr. Ernest Phillipos at Ask him to give baby Isaiah 90 more days on a respirator as his parents requested. Copy your email to Alberta's health minister at

Thank you.

Mark Pickup,

h/t Herm Wills, President of Campaign Life Coalition Nova Scotia

Thursday, January 21, 2010

What's the Betting?

King's Glory Church in Calgary, Alberta lost their charitable tax status just before Christmas 2009. Canada Revenue Agency cited “members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc” as the reason for denial.

The pastor of King's Glory, Arthur Pawlowski, also runs Street Church Ministries in Calgary, an evangelistic ministry that gets right out into the streets of the city.

From their website:

Street Church Ministries is a multi-denominational, multi-ethnical ministry of believers, who have been reborn in the spirit of the Lord, coming together to take part in the call of Acts 1:8. Our vision is to give everyone an opportunity to respond to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the proclamation of the full Gospel. We envision a Street Church in every city and town in Canada, and around the world.

Street Church Ministries is involved in evangelism every week in the city of Calgary where we go out by the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the full gospel, giving everyone the opportunity to respond to Jesus. We know that there is power in the simple message of the gospel.

Apparently, Pastor Pawlowski is simply too outspoken for the politically-correct atmosphere that the Canadian government requires of churches and charitable organizations.

This is simply a way of punishing me for defending our rights, and for standing up to bureaucracy, and speaking outagainst corruption and abuse of power. Speaking about different sins is not a political behaviour but is rather a God and state given right. We are a church, and I am a pastor, what is the government expecting me to talk about if not moral issues and God’s laws? stated Pawlowski

Christians have been worrying about this for a while. I know that, in our church here in Halifax, the subject has been raised about whether priests are afraid to speak up about certain issues for fear of losing charitable tax status. I guess they had reason to be afraid.

My concern is that this is going to make preachers of the Word even more timid about stating the Gospel truths on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, and divorce. Just when I was going to propose to our pastor that our pro-life group put together a bulletin insert with some facts about abortion for the week prior to the March for Life here in Canada (mid-May). I will still propose that we do this, but I already know the answer. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.

I guess we know what would happen to Charles Wesley or William Wilberforce if they showed up here today. Would this censure also include Martin Luther King? The Christian truths upon which we built the free western world are being muzzled by the state, no doubt about it.

h/t LifeSiteNews article by Patrick Craine

h/t No Apologies

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Musing on the News

Many things mulling around in my brain. Rather than write a long post, carefully thought out, I think I will just give some links so that you can check things out yourself.

We all hear the news and get various takes on it, but sometimes when you flit around the internet, you pick up different takes on issues that are worth passing along.

Haiti - that poor poor country, poorest country in the Western world, devastated by a quake and today, by another aftershock, with an estimated 200,000 people dead.
I am proud to know that the Canadian forces have responded so quickly to the emergency and two ships have arrived in Haiti, bringing medical supplies, food, water and just sheer labour to get done what needs to be done. Such as clearing roads so that supplies can get through.

Melanie Phillips writes a scathing indictment of the UN's response to Haiti here :

...the key problem appears to be a total absence of leadership, so that no-one is taking control of the situation. Haiti’s own government is unable to do this; until yesterday, America was taking a back seat waiting upon the UN to do the business. But the UN has conspicuously failed to do so.... And now that the US has finally lost patience and piled in troops to deliver supplies to the people, there are predictable cries from the French -- and doubtless other knee-jerk America-bashers – that America is ‘occupying’ Haiti. Such is the derangement of the anti-America obsession.

And Phillips is rightly proud of the nation of Israel for their quick and efficient response, being the first to set up a field hospital with working equipment:

One desperate American aid worker tells CNN:
I’ve been here since Thursday; no-one except the Israeli hospital has taken any of our patients.
Another remarks of the Israeli field hospital:
It’s like another world here compared to the other hospitals. They have imaging... my God, they have machines here, operating theatres, ventilators, monitoring, it’s just amazing.
Of any American field hospital, there is apparently not yet any sign. The reporter observes that the Israelis have come from the other side of the world. Another aid worker says it makes them ashamed to be Americans.
Israel sent a team of 220 aid workers. Israel has a population of six million. The population of Britain is 60 million. I’d say that was a disproportionate Israeli response, wouldn’t you?

A great suggestion is made by Daniel-Joseph MacArthur-Seal on MercatorNet:

The United Nations plans to spend US$1.9 billion to refurbish its Manhattan HQ. Why not relocate to Port-au-Prince instead?

You can read his article here

And, of course, the age-old question "why is there such suffering?" bringing out the atheists with their cold statements and also bringing out, unfortunately, those who make apocalyptic statements such as evangelist Pat Robertson who claims the disaster is the result of Haiti's making a pact with the devil to obtain its freedom from France.

Excellent post on that question Searching for Meaning in Disaster by Michael Cook

And a classic article by Peter Kreeft: The Problem of Evil brings the question of evil right back to the reality of sin.

And what is Planned Parenthood up to these days?

Well, in Houston, they are getting ready to open up the largest abortion centre in the US, second only in size to one in China. This is in the heart of Houston, right in the middle of four neighbourhoods that consist of blacks and Hispanics who are poor. The building is said to look like a cash register. Thousands of pro-lifers gathered on Monday, Martin Luther King Day, to demonstrate peacefully outside the building under construction. Given that one out of every two African American babies are destroyed by abortion, how can anyone question the statement made by black pastors that this is "prenatal racial genocide"?

Read more here

A few years ago, I was in Houston, in just that neighbourhood. I was visiting Father Sean Wenger whom I knew from his days here in Halifax as parish priest at St. Thomas Aquinas Church. I remember being struck by the poverty of the surrounding streets. Yes, there are some people in Texas who do not have air conditioning and I know where they live.

What else is Planned Parenthood up to? well, gosh oh golly, they are requesting funds so that they can continue their work in Haiti. What work? abortions of course along with dispensing birth control to young people from the ages of 10 to 25.Read more here

On the other hand, women do continue to give birth despite the fact that the country is torn apart by the recent earthquake. And yet six out of seven hospitals were destroyed by the quake. So the women are giving birth in dirty conditions with no privacy; life goes on, and who is thinking of them? Thank God for MaterCare International, a Christian organization that helps women in the Third World who experience birth in the midst of poverty.

It almost seems that with these type of tragic circumstances somehow the world believes that life simply stops, so emergency obstetrical care for life threatening complications is not an immediate priority. The result is an enormous increase in the number of maternal deaths...The pro-abortion side are already seeking funds for their death and despair and the Haitians have had enough of that. - Dr. Robert Walley, President of Matercare International

Should you wish to donate to Matercare, you can contact them at or phone 1-709-579-6472

Republican Victory in Massachusetts

I have to confess I am absolutely thrilled by the win in Massachusetts by Scott Brown. He was a real dark horse, before Christmas people weren't even talking about him. Yet he has won the Senatorial seat that has been held by the Kennedy family since 1953. Some are saying that this doesn't mean anything for the Democratic party across the nation, but Scott did campaign on national issues and I really do think the voter turn-out and the reversal of the party elected shows that this was a vote against the policies of President Barack Obama. It is seriously doubted now whether the health care bill can be rammed through since the Republicans have gained that one extra opposition vote necessary to prevent the bill's passing. And if the Democrats try to push this bill through now, after this major electoral upset, I doubt that the American people will stand for it.

Good analysis here by Victor Davis Hanson of National Review Online

And I leave the last line to Father Frank Pavone:

Americans love freedom. If Washington ignores the will of the people, as the Democratic party has been doing in so many issues, the people respond at the voting booth to reclaim their own voice ... When the people feel powerless to change the minds of those in power, they change those in power. -
LifeSiteNews, Jan 19, 2010

Monday, January 18, 2010

Constructive Tension

This week, on Friday, thousands of people will gather in Washington, DC to march for life. Specifically for the life of the unborn. Students, parents, grandparents, clergy, lay people, all sorts of people will be there because they want an end to abortion.

And what does such an event do? It creates a tension in society that will disturb those who have accepted abortion as the norm, it will bother the conscience of America and the world that we have allowed women to say they have the right to do with their bodies whatever they wish. Only it is not their body, it is someone else's body. The right not to be pregnant does not trump the right of someone to have their life. Period.

This Friday, there will be numerous groups represented - one that I just learned about is KIDS, aka Keep Infants with Down Syndrome. The woman I listened to has a seven-year-old daughter with Down Syndrome and, during her pregnancy, because she refused an abortion, and refused genetic testing, she was labeled "difficult patient" on the cover of her file. This was so that any doctor who had to handle her case would know what he was going to face - a woman who defied the doctors who told her to have an abortion, because her child was going to be a burden to her family and a burden to society. She is going to Washington because she knows that the health bill that is about to be rammed through the Senate in Washington, will bring about the rationing of health care to people like her daughter. She said she has spoken to people in Canada, who personally have experienced the limits of socialized medicine and have found themselves short-changed because their children cost the system too much.

It is time for constructive tension to break forth in Canada. I am so sick of the apathy that I encounter, I am so disheartened by even those who call themselves pro-life who say "just lighten up a bit". As if I am a heavy-weight when it comes to being pro-life! I wish they could meet in person someone like Father Frank Pavone or Father Euteneuer - then they would really meet someone for whom the unborn are so precious and so valuable and so loved by God that they are giving their lives for this cause.

When Christians are willing to get outside of their churches and go to the streets and pray for what they know is right, then we will see an end to abortion. It is simply not enough to say that you will pray for this injustice to end; we must do this publicly at the very places where the evil is being committed. Because then and only then, will society know that we are serious about this, and then God will hear our prayer and heal our land. When we are willing to undergo persecution for the truth, then we will begin to see the change that we desire.

Please God, break the apathy that covers this country of Canada. Break through the wall of indifference and lack of care from which we Canadians suffer. Break our hearts so that we can know how You feel about every single child that is conceived. Please God, do whatever You have to do to "turn the hearts of fathers (and mothers) to their children again."

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Abortion is Black Genocide

If you can't listen to the whole video, move your cursor to the point at around 4 minutes, 13 seconds. What you will hear is 2004, in the United States, for every 8 black babies born, 10 blacks die. In 2005, for every 9 black babies born, 10 blacks die. What these genocidal trends depict is that blacks in America are dying at a faster, greater rate than we are being born. And my prayer is that somebody will stand up, take notice, and help us to stop this killing before it's too late. Become educated and get involved. Become educated, and get involved. Become educated and get involved. - Reverend Arnold Culbreath, Protecting Black Life

Black Americans form 11% of the US population, but black women have 37% of all abortions performed in the country. What does this mean?

One out of every two black children is aborted

At the end of this month, the Women's Centre of St. Mary's University in Halifax is hosting a conference called Trust Women. One of the key topics is abortion since the conference is focused on the reproductive rights of women. One of the speakers is Loretta Ross, founder and national director of SisterSong, a group comprised of women of various coloured races, uniting to campaign for reproductive justice. Loretta Ross is an African American who campaigns for women to have abortions so that they can be better mothers to the children they wish to have. No mention of the side effects of abortion on women's bodies and psyches. No recognition that many of us came into this world as surprises, thank God our mothers didn't abort us because we weren't as wanted as perhaps they might have liked. Surprises yes, mistakes no.

How can this woman spout what she does? Does she not realise what is being done to her race by Planned Parenthood? Hasn't anyone told her? Or is she so blinded by her own personal life tragedies to think that the course she is following will bring true justice to women of minority groups?

I am appalled that St. Mary's University is once again being led by a group of biased feminists, the Women's Centre (same group that prevented Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform from speaking last winter). They will be presenting falsehood to the student body, they will be pushing their lies about abortion and reproductive rights to unsuspecting young women. Their list of speakers include Joyce Arthur, well known for being extreme even amongst other pro-choice feminists.

An email to the Women's Centre, requesting permission for a group that has a different view on abortion, to have a table at this conference, was not answered. Why am I not surprised?

As one student said to me, this Women's Centre does not listen to anyone but themselves. And he objects to his tuition fees being used to help fund the Women's Centre, which has an agenda that he does not wish to support.


Efforts to Sabotage Marriage

Today, two homosexual couples are challenging Proposition 8 in the court of California. Their lawyer David Boies writes "Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing." He calls homosexuality "a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination."

Even though Proposition 8 was voted on democratically by the citizens of California, these activists think they have the right to challenge what has been democratically supported by the majority of their fellow citizens. But more than that, they equate homosexual rights with civil rights, treating homosexuality the same as skin colour. They don't seem to recognize that, while some homosexuals change their sexual orientation, no one has managed to change their skin colour. (we won't talk about Michael Jackson here)

Melanie Phillips, a writer with The Spectator in England, has written a brilliant column on the defense of traditional marriage, the best that I have read anywhere. She is taking David Cameron (leader of the Conservative Party, thus the opposition in England) to task for his statement that society needs to uphold commitment, whether that be the commitment of a husband and wife, or a same sex couple.

As Phillips says so well:

Second, marriage is not all about commitment. Commitment is only part of it. We may be deeply committed to our friends, to our brothers and sisters, to our employers. We are not married to them.

Marriage is the solemn and binding union of the two people who come together to create the next generation. That is why it is afforded such unique respect as a unique institution which plays a unique role for society in safeguarding the upbringing of children. That is why the ‘commitment’ of man to man or woman to woman is not in the same category at all. To treat it as such is to denigrate and further undermine marriage. It shows a total failure to grasp just what marriage actually is.

She has written several times before on the epidemic of fatherlessness in Great Britain and here she connects the dots:

And yes, I do actually know that too many marriages also end in divorce; but the fact is that marriage is still the most reliable mechanism to help couples remain together, while the ‘committed’ relationship of cohabitation – which breaks down many times more frequently -- is now the major engine of mass fatherlessness in Britain.
In large measure, that is surely because the genuine commitment that marriage requires of both parties is based on a unique sexual bargain and family dynamic. The mother of a child requires the father of that child to commit himself to the duty of helping raise it for the duration of its childhood; only the biological father will be prepared to undertake that onerous burden; but the father will only commit himself if he is absolutely certain the child is his, for which he requires the mother to be faithful to him. And the child requires both its parents to raise it, because they form the two crucial and interlocking pieces of the jigsaw of that child’s identity. If those pieces fall apart, the child’s identity is in danger of fracturing too.

Warning that this all-inclusive understanding of commitment leads to the acceptance of polygamy (men with more than one wife) and polyandry (women with more than one husband), and also the legalization of incest (I'm serious, this has been raised already in some places), Phillips doesn't hesitate to call a spade a spade - acceptance of same-sex marriage is a return to a pagan way of life, it is not the mark of an enlightened civilization.

Sexual restraint and the monogamy which enshrined and protected it were once considered a hallmark of civilisation and progress. It was primitive societies for which sex was merely a carnal and entirely non-judgmental procedure devoid of any spiritual, moral or socially progressive dimension. That is a key reason why such societies were very often marked by the oppression of women, cruelty and savagery and remained backward or even died out altogether.

Read Melanie's entire article here

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Abortion and Breast Cancer Link Confirmed

For years now, pro-lifers have been issuing warnings about the effects of abortion, both physical and psychological. One of those warnings was the dire one about the increased risk of breast cancer. Pro-choicers were infuriated by this and claimed that pro-lifers were using scare tactics to deter women from seeking abortions.

Despite numerous medical studies that did indicate there was indeed a link between abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer, this evidence was dismissed and even the Cancer Society, when contacted, told me that all the studies they had examined, indicated there was no increased risk for women.

Well, the view is changing. This past week, National Cancer Institute researcher Louise Brinton has reversed her professional opinion on this very issue.

Brinton was the chief organizer for the 2003 NCI "workshop" on "early reproductive events and breast cancer", a panel which reported that the lack of an ABC link had been "established"... since 2003, the NCI has firmly maintained the position that there is no ABC link; that the studies which had reported such a link were deemed unreliable... Now, in 2009, Brinton is on record reiterating findings of the ABC link and reporting them as “consistent” with earlier studies that found induced abortion to be a risk factor.
- Dr. Joel Brind,

This is an honorable thing for a professional to do: to publicly reverse one's position and admit that one was wrong.

How great is the risk they are talking about? I have seen figures as high as 40%; in other words, women who have an induced abortion may increase their risk of breast cancer by as much as 40% over those who do not have an abortion.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2010 ( – U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 that persuaded women that it was “well established” that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk,” has reversed her position and now admits that abortion and oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risks.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality, in women under age 45, contained an admission from Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%.

The study found that “a statistically significant 40% increased risk for women who have abortions” exists, and that a ” 270% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality) among those who used oral contraceptives while under age 18 and a 320% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives,” also exists. - LifeSiteNews, Jan 7,2009

Here in Canada, a brave MP from Alberta, Maurice Vellacott has been advocating for more information to be given to women who are having abortions, information that reveals the risks that they may be incurring, breast cancer being one of those risks. Vellacott has been rebuked, mocked, and castigated by other members of parliament and by the general public for his alarmist statements. Now, it seems that the man is vindicated. For years he has been advocating against abortion, both on the grounds that it takes the life of an innocent human being and also on the grounds that it damages women psychologically and physically.

Gloria Galloway has written about Vellacott in the Globe and Mail on January 8 and concludes her article with the statement:

And trying to prevent abortions by scaring women with breast cancer would truly be wrong. But so too would be suppressing the risks of abortion or any medical procedure.
- Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, Jan 8, 2010

I have before me a small business card from the organization,, with the words "Why Wasn't I Told?"

On the back, it reads:

Fact: Pregnancy causes breast tissue to grow and mature into cancer-resistant, milk-producing cells. Abortion halts this process, and leaves women who choose abortion over childbirth with a greater number of cancer-vulnerable cells and a greater lifetime risk of breast cancer.

Fact: Since 1957, over 50 studies link abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer.

Fact: In the 1960's, before abortion was readily available, a Canadian woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer was 1 in 20. How the National Cancer Institute of Canada says it's 1 in 9.


Every fall, I see the thousands of men, women, and children participating in the Run for the Cure to raise money for breast cancer research. And breast cancer is one of those diseases that has obtained great public awareness, with the attendant good medical response to women who find themselves diagnosed with suspected breast cancer. This is all well and good and such research should continue. Women should be given this care, but at the same time, women need to be told that they run a very high risk of developing breast cancer if they choose induced abortion.

And the cost of treating someone for breast cancer is extremely high, much higher than the cost of taking someone through a pregnancy and seeing that their child is delivered safe and sound. Not to mention the fact that we lose those children who are so desperately needed in our aging population. Another dot to be connected on the issue of abortion; let's hope that those who are pro-choice, which includes the majority of our politicians, will have the courage to look at the facts and admit that women deserve to be told the truth.

h/t Jill Stanek
h/t Pro Life Pro Woman