Political

If you believe in prayer…

December 18, 2014 by Natalie Sonnen 1 Comment

..now’s the time to put your belief into action. Peter Ryan, the executive director of New Brunswick Right to Life is asking for prayer today, as the NB Legislature debates abortion.

The new Liberal premier, Brian Gallant, has promised to strip New Brunswick of every last shred of protection for women seeking abortion in the province by January 1st, but the Conservatives have decided to not allow any changes until the Legislature has had a chance to debate the issue.

The notice of motion was introduced by two women PC MLAs, Dorothy Shephard, and seconded by Jody Carr. It reads:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to cause any changes to abortion services that it has adopted or intends to adopt to be the subject of a debate in the House, and to delay implementation of those changes until that debate has occurred.

Thank you to these women for at least recognizing the democratic process.

The January 1st change would mean tax-funded abortion on demand in NB hospitals, a historic policy change, with a likely gradual but steep increase in the abortion rate.

According to Ryan, today’s debate could go to an unlikely vote – it would certainly take a miracle, hence the request for prayers.

He writes:

Today an all-important debate on abortion policy will take place in the NB Legislature, initiated by the Tory opposition. They could push for a vote on the issue (the government is not obliged to vote on this, as the policy change in Regulations (not legislation) is due to take place through an Order-in-Council under the cabinet’s direction). If a vote does take place, that likely has to happen by this Friday, when the Legislature is likely to recess for Christmas.

If a vote were to take place, the results could be interesting. About 10 of the government’s MLAs (out of 26 total) have pro-life leanings, and if 5 of them were to jump ship the outcome of the vote could be favorable!

I therefore turn to you and the national pro-life community for spiritual help at this time. Perhaps you could remember us in prayer over the coming hours and couple days. Thank you so much.

For more information on this issue, see the LifeSite breaking news article here.

“Special” on Parliament Hill

December 12, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 13 Comments

Some think that a committee of bureaucrats gave pro-lifers special treatment when they planted 100,000 pink and blue flags representing 100,000 lives lost in Canada to abortion annually on Parliament Hill.

Having wiped the tears of laughter from my cheek, let me now continue.

The group that planted the flags received “special” permission because all displays on Parliament Hill need “special” permission. In a very “special” process called “applying” that you and I can all do, because it’s Parliament Hill and we as Canadians own that “special,” “special” space and can “apply” to “use” “it.”

So. By way of example, if the Society of People With Heads Up Their Asses (SOPWHUTA) wanted to plant some flags on Parliament Hill, they’d need “special” permission, too.

And would anyone look into that?

No. Perhaps because that’s a club they are in.

PS Who, by the way, actually believes that the Prime Minister is personally involved with approvals for displays on Parliament Hill? Really.

PPS This non-story really got my goat. Because if there is one thing that is very, very, VERY true, particular with the current government, it’s that pro-lifers don’t get special treatment. Precisely because the government is so keen on drawing lines between themselves and pro-lifers, more often the treatment is a negative special treatment. So this story simply draws attention to the great abyss between what actually happens and what people think happens.

Only a symbolic win in New Brunswick?

November 27, 2014 by Faye Sonier 2 Comments

According to Jonathon Van Maren, who is actually quite nice,

Gallant did scrap the regulation stipulating that women get the approval of two doctors before obtaining a taxpayer-funded abortion. This is a victory for abortion activists, but an almost completely symbolic one, as women were virtually never refused an abortion. If women were being refused abortions based on the two-doctor rule, you can rest assured that the abortion activists would have been making these women the star of every press release, media appearance, and sparsely attended rally they held. So there’s no reason to expect a sudden dramatic jump in the abortion rate.

The abortion activists did not get what they were pushing for in the first place, which was funding for the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton. That clinic recently closed down, citing a lack of funding. Activists were demanding that the provincial government provide the cash to get the clinic up and running again, and raised over 100,000 dollars to help things along. However, Gallant’s decision specifically limits abortions to hospitals, denying abortion activists the one concrete victory they were actually seeking.

He makes a few more points in his blog post. Read it here.

So this is actually encouraging. Maybe that’s the wrong term. Less depressing? I’ll take it though. Let’s be clear on our actually wins and losses. If we’re going to be strategic about things, we can’t afford to do otherwise.

And the answer is…not Justin Trudeau

November 19, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 3 Comments

So who is “he” in the quote?

He maintained that politics is about values, starting with moral values. The primary guardians of these values are not states or political organizations but free individuals endowed with a sense of responsibility.

It was actually Vaclav Havel, dissident, writer and former President of the Czech Republic. Hmmmm, I would have thought we were all deeply tuned in to the 25-year anniversary of the Velvet Revolution in Czech Republic. I went to an event in Prague once and heard Havel speak, in person. Amazing memory of Prague Castle. That I should even have a memory of Prague Castle strikes me as amazing. I digress… will save the walking down memory lane for a different post.

Vaclav Havel is someone I want to read more. Moral values are out of style somehow these days. I think he is right–everything is about morality–and we ignore that at our peril.

[Tweet “Madeleine Albright said the west didn’t win the Cold War, but rather that Communism fell.”]

I’m paraphrasing her words from a commemorative event this morning. That is an interesting sentiment, and she may be right, given what we are seeing from Putin in Russia these days.

Does this have anything to do with abortion? Only peripherally. Anytime is a good time to remind you that PWPL is a blog for pro-life women (and women who want to be pro-life but need a little time) who are interested in any manner of different things, including the history of totalitarianism.

(Your friendly PWPL founder is, in any case. She feels comforted at gatherings where a larger than usual percentage of people speak English with a strong Czech accent. In a pinch, any slavic accent will do. True.)

Who is “he” in this quote?

November 18, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 4 Comments

He maintained that politics is about values, starting with moral values. The primary guardians of these values are not states or political organizations but free individuals endowed with a sense of responsibility.”

[Tweet “What politician might say politics is about moral values? Step right up and take a guess!”] (No googling.)

I will reveal the answer shortly.

About that human rights museum

November 5, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

This column–I loved it in many ways but especially this line:

There’s a reason that the activists of the abortion movement are in a museum: Because abortion activists are a thing of the past.

Bam. We have to protest these non-rights that are being portrayed as such.

UK MPs vote to ban sex-selection abortion

November 5, 2014 by Faye Sonier 13 Comments

In Canada, we can’t even have a Parliamentary motion on this topic, but thankfully the UK is making progress where we’re unable to:

The vote of 181 to 1 for the Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill tabled by pro-life Conservative MP Fiona Bruce will now go to second reading in January.

Bruce tabled the bill in an effort to end confusion over the legal status of sex-selective abortion in the UK.

“It is a shame that this clarification is needed. Successive health ministers and even the Prime Minister have been very clear … that abortion for reasons of gender alone is illegal. The Prime Minister has described the practice as appalling but they are being ignored,” Bruce told the Commons.

It remains appallingly controversial in Canada to state in Parliament that killing female pre-born children simply because they are female is wrong.

Canada, we can learn something from the UK about human rights. Wake up and get with the times.

Pray: Shooter at War Memorial and on Parliament Hill

October 22, 2014 by Faye Sonier 4 Comments

For those of you who pray, please pray for everyone impacted.

Justin Trudeau asking questions about abortion in PEI

October 21, 2014 by Faye Sonier 3 Comments

So more news and confusion about abortion and the law in Canada:

Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau thinks Prince Edward Islanders should be asking questions to make sure the Canada Health Act is being respected in regards to a recent decision to cut short planning for an abortion clinic on the Island. […]

“I think people are going to be rightly asking questions to make sure the Canada Health Act is being respected, and that Canadians have the opportunity to make choices about their own reproductive health,” said Trudeau.

For the record, the Canada Health Act does NOT require provinces to provide or fund abortions. For details, you can read this short paper on this very topic.

photo credit: RobertCiavarro via photopin cc

Just say no to intentional killing of the innocent

October 20, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

Mark Penninga writes about the ongoing legalization of assisted suicide debate in the National Post.

One need not be healthy or strong to be protected equally under the law. As long as you have human DNA, you qualify for protection. Euthanasia and assisted suicide violates this principle of no intentional killing. I was shocked by how little the lawyers and judges in the Supreme Court hearing discussed this. The inviolability of life, which is a foundation for all law, was brushed aside as if it was a pesky house fly that distracted the lawyers and judges for a brief moment.

If we cross the line where the right to life moves from objective to subjective, we undermine the entire foundation of human rights.

In my mind, anyway, we already crossed that line round about the time we legalized abortion. So nowadays, (for many other reasons as well) life is not objective. It is not an objective good to defend, encourage and support. It is purely subjective–because individual people, particularly suffering people, have good reasons very often, to end their own lives. We used to stand up consistently against that, but today we don’t anymore. Could it be that abortion normalized the idea of killing others–precisely because it has been so routinely framed as difficult, but necessary and even compassionate, alongside being paid for by the government?

Meta