A two-child policy. Seriously, people. We need to get over the overpopulation myth.
A two-child policy. Seriously, people. We need to get over the overpopulation myth.
As many readers of this blog know, Liberal party leader Justin Trudeau stated this past year that his MPs must fall into line, and vote pro-choice on any bills or motions that cross their desks. Freedom of conscience for his MPs was tossed to the side in favour of a rather radical pro-choice position. I’ve written on this issue several times in the last few years.
Oh democratic and human rights. I miss you.
Anyway, in response to his decision and in anticipation of the upcoming federal election, Campaign Life Coalition Youth and the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform have lauched the #No2Trudeau campaign. You can learn about the campaign here:
The 2015 federal election presents the pro-life movement with a tremendous opportunity in Canada. For the first time ever, we have in Justin Trudeau a leader that we must unify against given that he’s unambiguously and vocally pro-abortion, supportive of the so-called “right to die,” and opposes the government’s anti-prostitution legislation which attempts to combat human trafficking to keep women safer. Justin Trudeau has declared that there is no choice but pro-“choice” in the Liberal party of Canada, forcing Members of Parliament in his caucus to vote down any legislation restricting abortion, regardless of their conscience or their beliefs. This does not just impact pro-life MPs and members of the Liberal Party, it also impacts the majority of Canadians who feel that abortion should be subject to at least some restrictions. Justin Trudeau is not only an extremist on the abortion issue, he is also forcing the Liberal Party to join him in his extremism.
There’s a good chance that Jonathon and Alissa are coming to a city near you to speak. Check out their tour schedule here. They’ll be in Ottawa May 9th.
Canada’s capital is undertaking one of the biggest infrastructure projects in its history: Light Rail Transit. As expected costs have been climbing. They are now reportedly over two billion. Yet this enormous, world class taxpayer-funded project has no public washrooms along the route factored into its design or its budget. That’s right. Until the GottaGo campaign pointed this out to the citizenry in the nation’s capital, this colossal oversight was hidden in plain view.
First came the obvious jokes on the subject, then some media acknowledgement and then the public became engaged. As the news became known, most people were quite surprised that this was deliberately left out and continues to be left out. How can the plan focus only on getting people somewhere without considering their needs? It took a middle-aged, keen-eye woman to point out the reality of LRT as it would be experienced in everyday life, once the whole project would be completed.
Can we turn to ordinary folk to see what other lofty plans look like in the cold harsh light of reality? Well, let’s discuss the expertly designed sex education curriculum in Ontario.
Parents have expressed serious reservations about how the curriculum will have a pre-ordained roll out of sexually charged information. This is not a biology lesson in reproduction with all the wonders of the human body explained appropriately at reasonable ages. It is not the health lesson explaining STIs. Parents are not objecting with having lessons on cyber bullying or on why not to sext.
The sex-ed program, introduces concepts like gender fluidity at a grade 3 level, meaning that having a vagina doesn’t make you a girl. It is one that will talk about masturbation and facilitate the how-to discussion for 11-year-old boys and girls.
This incredible change has naturally upset many parents. The more they know, the more they object.
What has escaped the experts in their deliberations, their plans and their purpose is the reality of the classroom. How can the plan focus only on getting people somewhere without considering the reality involved in getting there?
Do these experts pre-suppose that the classroom is a static, orderly academic environment in grade school and through high school so that lectures and lessons can be given with a quasi-university seriousness? Well, parents know that there are some children who still wet their beds in grade three. There are children who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. There are autistic and other special needs children in class rooms who contribute to the dynamic of a class room and to the work of a teacher. Every day, there are teachers in those classrooms who are working with children who have found out today, that mom is leaving or dad isn’t coming back. Or that someone is dying. Teachers are incorporating healthy eating and exercising with saving the planet. They are recycling, reviewing, re-teaching, reminding and let’s not forget, re-acting to those in their charge. Teaching is an exhausting and demanding profession that most of us stand in awe of.
But it is not parenting. It is a complementary role. It is a necessary role. Good parents and good teachers, for the most part, are grateful for each other.
Still for too long, there have been teachers in both the Catholic and Public Boards, who have taken it upon themselves to educate their students away from their family’s values. They have anointed themselves saviours in the battle for the heart not just the mind of their students. In the hands of these teachers, many parents are extremely concerned about the sex ed curriculum that repeatedly encourages students to talk to a trusted peer or adult but never mentions talking to their parents.
So we have a shiny newly designed modern sex-education curriculum in Ontario. Eventually, more parents will recognize this curriculum’s built-in lack of parental discernment for this sensitive and mature subject. Eventually they will recognize the complete disrespect experts have for the parental role.
Parental awareness may not increase through a large public rally. It may not happen through a petition signing blitz. It will happen when the cement has dried on this public education project. One day the work will be accidently brought home or the topic brought up while tucking a child in with the bedtime kiss. Then, once again, a middle-aged mom (or dad) will see what has been hidden in plain sight. By then however, will the cost have been too high?
Nearly 7 years ago Ken Epp’s Bill C-484 (Unborn Victims of Crime Act), was raised to address a certain injustice in Canada that gets routinely overlooked. The Bill passed at Second Reading in the House of Commons, but an election was called later that year, and so the bill never made it any further. Since that time, no other MP has brought it back since.
Now this case is raising the issue again. Cassandra Kaake was 7 months pregnant when she was bludgeoned to death in a burned out Windsor, Ontario residence last week Thursday. The person responsible for this tragedy will be tried for Cassandra’s death, but not for that of her little girl, whom she had named Molly.
According to Dr. Greg Hasen, academic director of obstetrics for the Schulich School of Medicine, a seven-month-old fetus is “fully developed.”
Eyes are opening and closing, they’re drinking fluid, moving around,” Hasen said in an article in the Windsor Star (Dec. 16). “Their lungs aren’t fully mature, but the growth that occurs in the last two months of pregnancy is more in weight gain.
It’s to Canada’s shame that we have no such law, while in the U.S., it’s possible to treat an unborn baby as a crime victim in the courts of 38 states.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.