Somehow I missed this, but obviously I like it. Who wouldn’t?
Don’t miss out on this opportunity to hear our impressive line-up of speakers, including:
– Sean O’Hare (Banquet Speaker) – Senator Betty Unger
– John Carpay – Dr. José Pereira
– Natalie Sonnen – Kyle Neilson
– Derek Miedema – Pierre Lemieux
– Darlene McLean – Dr. Ramona Coelho
– Faye Sonier – Patricia Maloney
– John Sikkema – Jonathon Van Maren
Opening Mass Celebrant: Most Reverend Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa
Protestant Prayer Service: Reverend Rob Parker
Saturday Breaks and Banquet: Included with conference registration
Youth for Life Workshop with Sean O’Hare and Jonathon Van Maren
Friday, November 3; 3-4 pm; Senior high and up.
– FREE for registered conference attendees
– $10 for non-registered students
Sponsorships available: Call 1-866-780-5433. ($100.00 will register a student for the full conference.)
Guided Tour of Parliament Hill: Friday, November 3, 8 am. Additional fee: $28.
For information, call LifeCanada at 1-866-780-5433 or Action Life at 613-798-4494.
To order your tickets on-line go here:
An article from my colleague Peter Jon Mitchell and myself about finding the right work-life balance, based on a Nanos Research survey conducted earlier this year.
I saw a number of pro-lifers posting about the latest Scandal episode on Facebook. It’s one of television’s top shows. In last week’s episode, the main character apparently undergoes ‘the most realistic’ abortion ever shown during prime time.
I’ve watched Scandal. But I didn’t watch last week’s episode as I caught a story about it on LifeSiteNews, and I won’t be watching it. I’m four and a half months pregnant, and watching an abortion scene (and the scenes that follow) while Ave Maria, Silent Night and Hallelujah are played in the background would bring me to hysterics. Abortion is horrific. Abortion celebrated is a horror that I have difficulty imagining.
I just came across an article that explains why perhaps Planned Parenthood should stop celebrating this episode:
Because ultimately, I bet most viewers won’t remember the filibustering scenes or the political chatter about Planned Parenthood.
Instead, they’ll remember the episode’s most emotional moment: Olivia getting an abortion, all by herself, holiday music overheard, her dad’s voice denouncing family as a “burden.”
That’s not a moment any woman wants. That’s not a moment any man should want to happen.
I don’t know what story Rhimes, who serves on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, and the “Scandal” writers set out to tell. But the one they ultimately told is the true one: Abortion is a tragedy—not just for the unborn children whose lives are lost, but also for the women who have abortions.
Read the rest here. Even with the best writers, it’s impossible to portray abortion as something great and wonderful – because women feeling like they need to choose abortion and end the lives of their children just isn’t.
Then check out these beautiful pendants:
I just received one as a gift, and I have already bought one for a co-worker. They start at $45 and feature a mother caressing her womb on one side and an unborn child on the other. A portion of the proceeds go to pro-life charities. They’re Canadian and a wonderful pro-life gift to give and receive at Christmas.
I have never argued that abortion is the only social problem we have. Or even the worst social problem we have. That said, it’s a terrible problem, a blight on a compassionate, democratic country, that we would accept abortion, even embrace it as a “solution.”
So why don’t people see it as such? Lea Singh explains. She leaves us with a question though:
Breaking the mass hypnosis is an urgent need. But how? I am not quite sure.
Planned Parenthood is scrambling. Matt Walsh explains how:
As for the report itself, like I said, read it. Please read it. Lord, it’s laughable. I really want you to read it so you understand just how thoroughly, profoundly, irreparably dishonest the abortion industry is about everything, and how beholden our nation’s “reporters” are to it. Then again, maybe these water-carrying media members are just angling to the be the latest recipients of the trophies Planned Parenthood hands out to the most cooperative and obedient journalists.
Here’s the deal: not only does Planned Parenthood’s report fail to disprove CPM’s findings, it actually verifies them. In the first couple of paragraphs, the report admits, and I quote, “this analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” Alright. So there you go. The end, folks. Why are we still talking about this?
Read his article here.
This kid is about as impressed with Planned Parenthood as I am.
The photo session by Ottawa photographer Julie Hearty was provided through Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep, a U.S.-based non-profit organization that operates in more than 40 countries. It was formed in 2005 by Cheryl Haggard, a Colorado mother whose son Maddux died six days after birth, and Sandy Puc´, a professional photographer contacted by Haggard’s husband to take photos of Maddux. It was Haggard’s belief that her family’s healing would come about by remembering Maddux, rather than by forgetting him.
Last year, 38 families in the Ottawa area used Now I Lay Me Down’s services at numerous hospitals, while others had similar packages provided by a handful of photographers who volunteer at Roger’s House.
These words by the manager of CHEO’s palliative care program demonstrate such a compassion for pre-born children and their parents:
“When babies die at birth or just before birth, these parent suffer what we call disenfranchised grief, because people don’t recognize how meaningful this child was to them. And even if that child lives two minutes, that’s a relationship, and they can talk about their child. Even if they’re stillborn, they can still talk about their child. They held them, they bathed them, they had their pictures taken, they were part of the family. They had handprints. They gave them names.
“The main message is that your child, no matter how old, is, was and still is important. They lived. They had a heart that beat, somewhere.”
The Ottawa Citizen article is well worth your time.
It’s certainly nice to read words of compassion about unborn babies. It’s refreshing when we consider what else is being said and done.
I live in Ottawa. When the Ashley Madison story first broke, I thought to myself, “Wow, four people in Ottawa are going to be really stressed out.”
I know. My brain picked “four” as the likely number of people in my city registered on a website that facilitates infidelity. I thought Ashley Madison was an American company, and Ottawa can sometimes seems like a quiet little town. Sure, we have our occasional scandals on the Hill, but really. Ottawa?
Canada’s capital city, Ottawa, is also it’s most potentially adulterous, Reuters reports. Around 1 in 5 of the population is registered on Ashley Madison, a social network aimed at married people that touts “Life is short. Have an affair” as it’s slogan.
The sleepy city, with a population of around 883,000 boasts 189,810 users, according to Avid Life Media, the Toronto-based company that owns the service.
I find this all really depressing. It’s likely that I know at least a few people who’ve signed up for help to cheat on their partners.
Many of you have heard of this woman by now. She says she’s a 26-year-old graduate student who lives in a state that requires a 72-hour waiting period between a consultation for an abortion procedure and the procedure itself.
On July 7, this anonymous woman will give pro-lifers 72 hours to donate one million dollars to her website. If they do, she’ll let her child live, place the child for adoption and put the money in a trust for him or her. If not, she’ll abort her child and return the donations.
She anticipates that pro-lifers won’t give her the money, which she will interpret as pro-lifers only caring about babies, and not women. To make her point, she’ll abort her child on July 10.
Her website domain name is ProlifeAntiWoman. We, at ProWomanProLife, felt compelled to respond to her open letter with our own.
Dear Anonymous Pro-Choicer,
Pro-lifers believe that their position is consistent with a worldview that demonstrates care for all humans, whether they are at their earliest stages of development inside their mothers’ wombs, or outside in the world, fighting for their rights. We see that women remain particularly vulnerable in today’s world. For example, millions of women are exploited each year in sex trafficking. In some countries, girls are still fighting for the right to be educated, or simply to drive and generally to provide a better world for their own daughters.
All girls also face a horrific battle just to survive, at their earliest stage of development. As The Economist reported a few years ago, millions of girls are being aborted due to cultural preferences for male children. The shortage of women in certain countries leads to more sex trafficking, providing a correlated rights abuse between easy access to abortion and human trafficking, something the compassion of pro-choicers is blind toward.
In short, we care about women too, in ways you don’t and we endeavour to walk our talk. We regularly donate to charities that seek to end the sex-trafficking of women, help girls attend schools in cultures that discourage it and also seek to raise awareness about the value and the life of females, even as they grow in the womb. We give to pregnancy care centres that extend care well beyond a couple of diapers, and to pro-adoption charities. There are numerous pro-lifers we are aware of caring for children with disabilities, with fetal alcohol syndrome, even babies who are addicted to drugs their mothers took, perhaps not even knowing they were pregnant before they gave birth. Our care extends regardless of age, level of development or their abilities or political outlook. We even care about you.
While we cannot give funds to your campaign for the reasons set out below, if you’re willing to waive your anonymity, we’d willingly provide our tax receipts to you, and we’d ask you to do the same in all fairness. We’ve all been giving for years. When we had more funds, we’ve given more, and during hard years of financial difficulty, we’ve given less, but we’ve given. We’ve also volunteered, helped women in our lives with childcare and can provide you with information so you can ask them about it.
I hope you’re reasonable enough to understand why it’s ridiculous to expect hard-working citizens to donate one million dollars to an anonymous person on the internet, when our funds could go to registered charities doing great work that have financial reporting and accountability measures in place.
Would you donate one million dollars to an anonymous pro-lifer who simply promised to spend your money on one endeavour or another? Of course not.
The argument that underlies your campaign is one that pro-choicers have been making for years. It’s the oft-repeated ‘Pro-lifers don’t care about women, and they don’t care about babies once they are born. They have no right to speak against abortion unless they are willing to care for these children.’
You’ve actually taken the rhetoric an unfathomable step further by being willing to sacrifice your own child in order to make this point. The argument that you’ve adopted basically states that if you’re unwilling to personally provide a solution for a certain problem, then you’ve lost the ability to speak out against that problem or injustice. An example to expose the intellectual poverty of your argument: We assume you care about domestic violence. Yet we also assume you do not provide a shelter in your apartment or home for every woman in your community who suffers abuse. Would it be reasonable on our part to then turn around and void your concern for spousal abuse?
The same could be said for any number of charitable endeavours.
We might add that yes, there are some activist pro-lifers who do little more than aim to draw attention to the plight of people who are killed in their mother’s womb. If we changed the issue—say to those who draw attention to the plight of the prisoner in totalitarian regimes, or those who draw attention to the plight of the hungry by doing nothing more than the odd 24-hour fast, we wouldn’t say that is wrong. We’d say they are doing what they can. The problem is that with the pro-life movement, you reject our premise and fail to see fighting for the human right to life at all ages as a valid cause. If you accepted the cause, you’d accept the effort, however meager. Pro-lifers are not the only ones who can be charged with hypocrisy.
In short, the argument that underlies your campaign is flawed. Your means to achieving it is one most reasonable people would never consider endorsing, much less financially supporting. And you’re making a life or death decision on these poor considerations. And getting the media to buy into your web page, suggesting you are not without resource or at very least, not without great media contacts.
In your state of residence, you are free to make a choice to kill your child. As you noted, you are also free to choose to place your child in a loving home of your choice. In the end, the choice is clearly yours, in every conceivable way. At ProWomanProLife, we have the tagline “Canada without abortion, by choice,” asking women to look outside politics and laws to consider in their hearts what abortion is. May you choose to do so, instead of launching manipulative and exploitative publicity stunts.
Faye Sonier & Andrea Mrozek