ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Featured Posts

Who knew?

by Leave a Comment

I don’t know anything about this Roe v. Wade movie (save for what the linked article tells me, which seems to be very biased even as it claims the movie will be very biased, but I digress). But I had no idea there was a “who’s-who of conservative Hollywood.” Where have they been hiding?

The rest of the cast is a who’s-who of conservative Hollywood. There’s Stacey Dash as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jamie Kennedy as abortion-rights activist Larry Lader; Joey Lawrence as Robert Byrn, a Fordham University law professor who fought against abortion; Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey) and Justine Wachsberger as Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the attorneys representing Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, in Roe v. Wade; Octavius Prince as abortion-rights lawyer Cyril Means; and Lucy Davenport as Betty Friedan. The Supreme Court justices are played by Jon Voight (Justice Burger), Robert Davi (Justice Brennan), Corbin Bernsen (Justice Blackmun), John Schneider (Justice White), William Forsythe (Justice Stewart), Wade Williams (Justice Rehnquist), Richard Portnow (Justice Douglas) and Jarrett Ellis Beal (Justice Marshall).

Conservatives in Hollywood. Rare as hen’s teeth. “Hen”ce this photo. I could have chosen a glam shot of Hollywood but I prefer the chickens.

 

What the California crisis pregnancy centre court decision really means

by 3 Comments

I have noticed that there is a lot of misinformation being spread about the NIFLA v Becerra decision that was recently released by the US Supreme Court. (Case in point, this statement.) So let’s set the record straight:

The impetus for the NIFLA v Becerra case was a 2015 law passed in California. Colloquially referred to as the “Reproductive FACT Act”, this law mandated that pro-life crisis pregnancy centres provide information to their clients about how to access a state-funded abortion.

Contrary to the claims of some (pro-abortion) news outlets, this case was ultimately not about the issue of abortion. Not really. While the case involved this Californian law that sought to control the actions of crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), the crux of this case had little to do with abortion, reproductive rights, or even CPCs.

The truth is that this decision focused squarely on one key concept: free speech.

In his concurring statement in the NIFLA v Becerra decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the entire NIFLA v Becerra case was about. Because, while this Californian law was lauded as a glorious advancement in women’s empowerment, the reality is that it was merely masquerading as an initiative to protect reproductive rights. Behind its thinly-veiled feminist veneer, this law had a much more sinister goal: namely, ushering in the reign of ideological totalitarianism.

You see, this Californian law sought to force CPCs to promote abortion to their clients. Perhaps you, like me, find this deeply offensive because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible. Or perhaps not. But even if you and I cannot agree that abortion is morally wrong, that is beside the point.

The real danger in this law was that is sought to destroy free speech. It sought to enforce the perspective of a select few on the entire population of California.

So the Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v Becerra was not a victory for pro-life groups. It was a victory for all individuals. Because this victory was ultimately a victory for freedom of speech. And, had the Supreme Court not intervened and struck down this law, the freedom of speech of all individuals – pro-life and pro-abortion – would have been jeopardized.

Perhaps the most ironic fact of all is that, even as pro-abortion groups rage about this outcome, they directly benefit from this decision. After all, it is free speech that has shaped our society in such a way that we are even able to express our displeasures with a Supreme Court decision or have a respectful debate about abortion at all.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion – whether you are a radical pro-abortion feminist or whether you, like me, believe women deserve better than abortion – June 26th, 2018 is a day for all of us to remember with grateful hearts. Because, as Martin Neimöller so eloquently stated, limitations of freedoms will inevitably affect us all.

 

Canada’s lost daughters

by 2 Comments

In between stories like this one, empirically proving that sex selection abortion does happen in Canada, we will be told consistently that this never happens. Until the next report saying it does.

Among the second-generation South Asian mothers with two previous daughters and at least one prior abortion, 280 boys were born for every 100 girls, which was greater than the male-to-female ratio among their first-generation peers. The report suggests both groups of mothers are likely taking part in sex-selective abortion in Ontario.

The normal ratio is 105 boys for every 100 girls. Tragic. So many missing women.

Seeking healing after abortion?

by Leave a Comment

Rachel’s Vineyard is having a retreat.

Rachel’s Vineyard is a safe place  to renew, rebuild and redeem hearts broken by abortion. Weekend retreats offer you a supportive, confidential and non-judgmental environment where women and men can express, release and reconcile painful post-abortive emotions to begin the process of restoration, renewal and healing.    Rachel’s Vineyard can help you experience God’s love and compassion on a profound level. It creates a place where men and women can share, often for the first time, their deepest feelings about their abortion. You are allowed to dismantle troubling secrets in an environment of emotional and spiritual safety.

Date – The next retreat in the Ottawa area is May 4-6
Cost – The 230$ cost covers all meals and lodging from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon. Financial assistance is available.

To register or get more information, email us at rvr_ottawa [at] yahoo.ca or call 613-806-5522 (Lynda or Terry).

Life is a journey. Thankfully, we can move on and recover from past mistakes and keep on travelling down the road. 

Successful social movements are inclusive

by 5 Comments

This article from late January by Michael Gerson gets at some important angles on the abortion debate that I had not thought about before.

It is the antiabortion movement that appeals to inclusion. It argues for a more expansive definition of the human community. It opposes ending or exploiting one human life for the benefit of another. There are heart-rending stories that prevent the simplistic application of this approach. But most of the antiabortion men and women I know have the genuine and selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.

Inclusion and expansion instead of exclusion and autonomy–are just some of the concepts he gets at. Worth reading.

Social inclusion, for all. (Including people in wheelchairs at running races.)

Helping pregnant women is verboten at Ryerson?

by Leave a Comment

That appears to be the case on Ryerson Campus in Toronto, where posters offering support to pregnant students caused another… kerfuffle. The student union doesn’t know what to do now, because they are worried the pregnancy support might be “anti-choice.” Does the student union understand how extreme this sounds to outside ears? Do they not believe there could even be one woman who would benefit from attention and support if she is pregnant unexpectedly and doesn’t want to abort? Have they never met anyone who was pressured to abort? These things are quite common. Must be that they live in a little ideological bubble, where all they can process are the words pro or anti-choice.

This article from the from the Ryerson student newspaper on Jan 23, 2018 explains.

About the new bubble zone and Canada Summer Jobs

by 8 Comments

Talked with Brian Lilley about the new bubble zone on CFRA last night.

What our governments would like is for abortion to be wholeheartedly accepted and applauded. So when anyone stands up and says otherwise, they have to quash that sentiment. That’s what is happening with the new restrictions around abortion clinics and with the Canada Summer Jobs program–no one should be allowed to say abortion is a bad choice. Hence also the heavy dose of Charter talk–abortion rights are nowhere in it, but maybe if we talk about them in that way, we can make it so?

The fact that there are, in the case of the bubble zone regulations, such strong punishments associated with free speech in the bubble zone shows just how brittle the pro-choice side is. On the one hand, women going to get abortions are freestanding, independent and strong–they’ve made their decision, so pro-choicers would lead us to believe. On the other hand, a flyer, or simply seeing someone with a sandwich board condemning abortion apparently causes such distress that it can’t be had for 50 metres outside the clinic.

So which is it?

We pay for abortion. We fund pro-choice groups. We don’t give real medical information to women considering abortion (Watch the movie Hush, please). And in this climate, we say that pro-lifers need to be Even Further Stigmatized?

I think pro-lifers are more effective than we give ourselves credit for. I also think the inclination of Canadians is more pro-life than even pro-lifers realize. The stats show the mushy middle leans toward wanting restrictions on abortion in certain circumstances. Only 16% of Canadians think abortion is acceptable at any time. That leaves a whole lot more Canadians who are conflicted. And that is a scary thing for pro-choice people–got to ramp up the propaganda campaign.

The thing about bubbles is, they pop.

 

 

 

Meta