We are not alone, strong, pro-life women! Got this note a couple of days ago. I’ve sent a reply already but then I realized, others may have thoughts to add. Can you write me, via Facebook comment, direct message or email–what you would advise?

How do I get my voice heard? Or, more accurately, my opinion. I am a pro-life feminist, and feel that our current government does not think that’s a credible position.

I would appreciate your advice on how to affect cultural change that I feel strongly about, without a platform to preach from, and without missionary zeal. I’m a full time working wife & mother, completely without any political affiliation, but strong opinions on humanity and compassion.

I’ve contacted my local MP, who directed me to the Status of Women Committee head. Not terribly helpful.

Please weigh in! If we figure out how she can make change then we can all make change!

Women deserve better than abortion.

Some Liberals walked out of a committee meeting on Parliament Hill today because Rachael Harder was nominated as Chair of the Status of Women committee. This is the quote from an NDP MP, Sheila Malcolmson:

The chair is the spokesperson for our work and it’s impossible for a spokesperson of an all parliamentary committee where reproductive choice is at the foundation of women’s equality, for her to be able to communicate and articulate our work,” she said after Tuesday’s meeting.

“Reproductive choice” is a euphemism. Here, it refers to abortion. So now we have this clear admission that the Status of Women ministry only represents pro-choice women. I’d be glad to see the whole committee fall apart and Status of Women defunded. I, for one, do not need special representation in Parliament, especially not by people who don’t represent all women, but only a subset of women.

And “reproductive choice,” is not the foundation of women’s equality. Those who make it so do a disservice to all women.

Rachael Harder, MP

This is a blog about why being anti-abortion is a pro-woman position. I am concerned with restoring a life-friendly approach in the culture, of which politics and the courts are a part. 

So let me say this: the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch looks very good. And in tumultuous, troubled times, it is good when good people are seated at the highest court. Pro-life people can and should celebrate selection.  

Abortion isn’t the only issue of our day. There are so many to be concerned about. But I firmly believe that when we get the big things wrong, which we are today, by killing at the beginning and the end of life, then we get a multitude of other things wrong flowing from that. I also believe, and this should be the subject of a much longer post, that when we get life wrong, we get a host of other stupid, wrong laws in something of an attempt to cover up for other sins or alternatively, simply because when you get life wrong, other bad things happen. You can’t kill babies and/or elderly and disabled folks without ramifications somewhere. (Question: If we had a thriving and growing population, aka, if we actually had babies, would anyone really care where our immigrants came from?) I’ll try and expand this point later.

For now, let me say only this: I applaud Gorsuch’s nomination. He’s not a nominee Hillary Clinton would have chosen. 

A long article about Molly’s Law:

Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines a human being as one who has “completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,” whether or not it has breathed yet or had its umbilical cord severed.

A fetus is not legally considered a person until that point, though the code does state that a homicide is committed if a child dies, “after becoming a human being,” due to injury just before or during its birth.

“To only have Cassie’s life recognized in the charges is beyond logic for us,” Durham says.

Well, yes. But due to a pro-abortion mentality that pervades the law, we aren’t allowed to recognize any preborn child, because doing so would make those who abort reconsider that choice, because suddenly the cognitive dissonance we currently live in (I’m expecting a baby! I’m getting an abortion and there’s nothing there) would be shattered.

Jeff Durham, Molly’s dad, had a room and clothing prepared for his daughter who wasn’t yet born. Yet there is no charge for the murder of the child, just the mother, his ex-girlfriend.

Trump and Clinton debate tonight.

My view of the US election is that this is a devastatingly tragic moment for America and this is true regardless of who wins.

So when I post this article about the woman behind Trump’s pro-life policies, it is not as an endorsement of Trump. It is simply to say this: On abortion, Trump chose one person to lead his policies well.

Read more about Marjorie Dannenfelser, here. She runs the Susan B. Anthony List. I’ve met her once or twice, because I thought of replicating that organization in Canada. It’s a women’s political pro-life voice. I like her.

Mrs Dannenfelser has just been named as the chair of Donald Trump’s new pro-life coalition, which will champion anti-abortion causes should he become US President. These include banning abortion after 20 weeks by signing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act into law, and removing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, should it continue to provide women with abortion services.

We will not get military/foreign/economic/environmental policy right unless and until we stop killing our children and turning a blind eye to it.

Our countries (USA and Canada) are filled with people who think abortion doesn’t matter. “Let’s talk about the real issues,” they say.

Abortion matters. It matters for our demographics, which matters for our economy. It matters for our compassion and our spirits. We cannot kill children and not become more hard-hearted.

Normal people don’t think abortion is a success story–it represents a necessary evil.

Ideologues, and Clinton is one, push for more and more “access” to this necessary evil. In so doing, they morph the evil into a good and preach it as such. People start to believe it. Witness the calls for “International Safe Abortion Day.” (Puh-lease. Could anything be more painful or contrived?)

So in this tragic election cycle, I’d hold my nose hard and vote Trump, hoping that on this one issue he will not throw pro-lifers or the millions of dead who never got to walk on earth under the bus. He may. But Clinton most certainly will. And abortion matters too much to ignore it.

At bottom, whoever wins, I acknowledge our culture is very, very far gone to have come to this tragic choice (for Americans–but we as Canadians are in much the same boat). I also acknowledge and stress, as I always have, that politics is not now, nor will it ever be, our saviour. I acknowledge that the culture is mimicking the church. The church is divided, distracted, and not acting as the beacon of hope it could be. Finally, I acknowledge my own hypocrisies and weakness, which contribute to the mess in the church, which contributes to the mess in the culture. If I by the grace of God get one issue right, I’m likely getting another issue terribly wrong.

Anyhoo. I’m glad to see Marjorie involved. May she get the opportunity to put her pro-life plans into action.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List

Sure, I’d take a woman for president, provided it’s the right woman. However, I agree with Barbara Kay here. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. Plus, it’s really counter-productive to think in terms of voting for a politician because they are fill-in-the-blank minority.

Either you think Hillary’s ascension would represent a momentous shattering of a glass ceiling it is high time was shattered, or you think what would have been a big deal in 1990 is a big yawn today. I’m in the latter camp. It would be a first in the U.S., to be sure, but so what? Never mind Thatcher and Golda Meir; there have been women prime ministers in India and Pakistan. And what good did that do the women of India and Pakistan? None, as far as I can tell, any more than Obama being the first black president did anything to heal the racial divide (and arguably contributed to its worsening).

(I disagree with Barbara that only a woman would think about stealing furniture or cutlery after serving in public office. I know of men who have stolen office furniture, and that’s the same idea.)

My big problem with Hillary is not her penchant for theft or lying but rather her extreme pro-abortion stance. Gone are the conciliatory, “conservative” days of safe, legal and rare.

In other news, I’m pleased to report that I am the first Canadian female of Czech-Polish heritage to have a women-only pro-life blog! Bring out the champagne. (There’s always champagne to be had if you narrow the parameters for winning.)