ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Andrea Mrozek

How to help

by 4 Comments

This question from a reader:  

You mentioned supporting the pro-life cause with our money. Can you suggest some pro-life organizations whose philosophy of action is in keeping with my beliefs about needing to change public opinion?

Good question. I take a liberal approach to pro-life activism. By this I mean, most any pro-life activism is good to me. In fact, finding an organization that is in keeping with your preferences, shouldn’t be too hard.

There are local groups in small communities. There are the bigger national ones. There are overtly Christian ones. Here are some I can think of off the top of my head:

Aid to Women–next to an abortion clinic, in Toronto

First Place Pregnancy Centre–counselling centre, providing real choices to pregnant women, in Ottawa. Just sued Planned Parenthood, and in the words of Don Hutchinson, legal counsel with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, they won.  

Centre for Bioethical Reform–for a more public, vocal activism on the streets. Calgary-based. I am, unlike some of my team here at PWPL, a fan of graphic photos combined with meaningful dialogue. Stephanie Gray who leads the group is a powerhouse, a one woman William Wilberforce. (And her team is good, too.)

Life Canada–national education campaigns. Responsible for the recent “Abortion. Have we gone too far?”

I’m a fan of Physicians for Life. We need doctors to reach out to the medical community. Arguably the best way to stop abortion is to ensure no doctor is happy to perform one. And this is the trend, which is great.

There’s Alliance for Life–there’s the National Campus Life Network (works with student groups, who are being banned across the country. An important battlefield.)

The vision for this site is for a network of big sisters. Mentors. Women who would partner over the long term with a woman in a crisis pregnancy to provide friendship, money and advice as needed on a one on one basis. We’re not there yet, so I’m not taking donations. I just put this out there.

Perhaps readers can post back on their thoughts for their favourite pro-life group. That could help others get grounded in what they want to do.

Finishing what they started

by 5 Comments

So Morgentaler will be received into the Order of Canada in Quebec City on Friday, I hear. Not enough to tolerate abortion, must celebrate. Must celebrate. Must celebrate. Must celebrate.

People have asked, “What should we do?” And I say, keep calm and carry on, in the words of Trish Egan. Ok, so they’re not her words. But you get my point. The only people who should not keep calm and carry on are those who are shocked by this award but are not doing anything to help pro-lifers. Those folks should keep calm, yes, but get plugged in somewhere–doing something, donating time, or money, or speaking out. That’s all I’m going to say about Morgentaler for now.

Careful

by 5 Comments

Read about how our society desires to do away with the differently-abled.

‘I think we have to be honest about the fact that a determination of Down syndrome very early in a pregnancy is very likely going to be accompanied by pressure to terminate a pregnancy, and that’s been the experience of most of the families that are connected to the Canadian Down Syndrome Society.’

The story indicates we may soon be able to get rid of them earlier. Sooner. Faster. More expediently. Achtung.

(courtesy of The Shotgun.)

_______________________________

Brigitte says wait a minute: This news story talks about such tests as “medical advancements”. But the only “treatment” I can see is termination. What kind of medicine is it that considers killing the patient earlier and more effectively “progress”?

Legislation versus culture

by 2 Comments

Rebecca writes here: “Feasible ways of reducing abortion should not be sneezed at.” And Brigitte writes, same post: “Why is it so difficult to find someone willing to say he or she is against abortion because it is wrong?”

What I desire is courage in politics–something along what Brigitte says–someone willing to say abortion is wrong. Or they could simply acknowledge abortion is not (for the vast, overriding majority of cases) medical treatment.

That’s why the opening line of the Libertarian policy is hard to stomach.

There’s no libertarian candidate in my riding–just the regulars plus one Marxist-Leninist. That’s a statement on the Canadian political scene right there–the only additional candidates I get in my riding are running because the mainstream left-wing, socialist-oriented, big spending parties aren’t left enough.

Rebecca’s point is a good one, too. In this climate–where courage is not evident, many don’t consider abortion wrong, or even understand what it is–an attempt to bridge the gap by defunding is a very important one. Even just saying those words. It’s a step that won’t happen, incidentally–if a small portion of “arts funding” can’t be removed without the better part of Toronto falling into a collective swoon, you can bet your bottom dollar the removal of abortion funding is beyond the pale.

Which leads me to my point all along: Addressing abortion through legislation is not the avenue I choose to fight. Many claim fighting abortion is a lost cause–clearly I don’t believe this is the case. But it’s in fighting for hearts and minds that I know we are winning. Enter the legislative arena, and it’s just one angry pro-abortion supporter after one apathetic politician after one embittered pro-lifer–all in a depressing row.  

I’ll always gravitate toward the politician who exhibits great courage in the face of adversity. I don’t see it in the main candidates, and I don’t hear it from Dennis Young either. That means I vote for the least worst candidate, while holding my nose and hoping to change the culture we live in all the while, in spite of bad political choices.

You lost me at “safe”

by 2 Comments

The Libertarian Party will fight to keep abortion safe and legal! That’s the opening statement of a policy puportedly intended to woo pro-lifers. To be fair, they go on to say:

…but we also feel a compromise is needed to ensure that the deeply held views of pro-life Canadians are respected. If elected, I will work to protect the freedom of conscience of pro-life medical workers and taxpayers by getting the federal government out of the business of financing abortions and pro-choice advocacy groups,” Dennis Young, Leader of the Libertarian Party.

______________________________

Rebecca adds: Hey, it’s a start. I live in a riding in which 83% of voters consider themselves pro-choice, and it’s far from the only riding that displays this sort of demographic. Not only is campaigning on stopping abortions a non-starter, but the Conservative Party of Canada officially denies that it will even discuss changing the abortion status quo – there will be no radical changes in the aftermath of this election concerning abortion in Canada, no matter what the outcome.

If abortions cost people money, more people would ensure that they didn’t need abortions, just as increases in the per-child welfare allowance in the different US states lead to higher births to moms on welfare. Even three year olds can weigh costs and benefits, and if people know something will cost them, they are motivated to find a way to do without it.

This wouldn’t make me vote Libertarian (I’m not a big fan of protest votes in elections that matter, and this one matters – although don’t they all?) but an attempt to stop using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions is the single most feasible step, that could be enacted in the short term, that governments could take to reduce the number of abortions. Feasible ways of reducing abortion should not be sneezed at.

______________________________

Brigitte doesn’t want to sneeze, but golly. Why is it so difficult to find someone willing to say he or she is against abortion because it is wrong?

______________________________

Rebecca says: One reason why it’s so hard to find someone who states that he or she opposes abortion because it is wrong is that, if he is running as a CPC candidate, he is not allowed to say that. This may or may not be a sensible strategy for getting elected, but I’m not hugely comfortable with asking people to suppress (as far as I know they’re not asked to lie about) their beliefs on a controversial issue.

The other thing is that I’m pretty sure the leader of the Libertarians, like a lot of his supporters, doesn’t believe it is wrong. Should we not make common cause with whomever we can, in the interests of fewer abortions happening? I personally am not at all troubled by joining with libertarians, who think abortion is morally and ethically fine but are offended by the public purse paying for them, in order to stop taxpayer funded abortions. We may not agree on what step to take next, but SoCons, libertarians, and a lot of other Canadians who may or may not be pro-life can move one step in the right direction in this case.

 

Yes we can…

by Leave a Comment

…be exactly the same as every other Democrat! Yes we can! A book review of “The Case Against Barack Obama” from The Economist.

If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn’t very much. Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.

______________________________

Brigitte watches too many videos: When I saw the title of this post I was sure it was about this amazingly creepy song…

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv2DpwCbw1k]

________________________

Andrea adds: “Change it, and rearrange it”–Obama’s a home decorator? Um, thanks Brigitte. That song is something special. Now it ends with the word “vote”–but for who? I’m so confused.

Abortion and conscience in Australia

by Leave a Comment

Thousands gather to protest a new abortion law in Australia, one that looks like it also forces doctors to refer for an abortion. News report here, while an op-ed offers this:

Maybe the doctors with the strong objections should consider a niche that won’t challenge their moral views.

Maybe doctors with strong pro-choice views, those unable to distinguish between what constitutes medical care versus what is a political statement ought to consider a niche that doesn’t challenge good medicine?  (Recall the words of Dr. Gutowski: “So with doctors, we are human beings, we get influenced by political things just like everybody else, and so we forget our science–that the fetus is a genetically distinct individual. We as scientists should be dealing with the science, not the politics–but it takes us a while to really think the whole thing through.”)

_________________________

Rebecca adds: Of course, this isn’t about access to information – if the real concern were that women whose doctors are pro-life might not be able to find an abortionist, why not just let abortion advocacy groups put big ads in the yellow pages, magazines, city buses and so on (you know, as is already the case. And I have yet to meet a woman who decided against abortion on the grounds that it was just to hard to track down a provider, darn it.)

No, it’s not about access, it’s about power. Political candidates are muzzled all the time about abortion: you can vote your conscience and believe as you wish, as long as you toe the line about abortion. Protestors are censored about abortion: you have the right to free speech, as long as you’re nowhere near an abortion clinic. Now doctors are being put up against a wall: you should use your clinical judgement, and the Hippocratic Oath, to govern your behaviour, unless it involves abortion. Enough.

But if we’re going to compel pro-life doctors to hand out contact info for abortion clinics, can we simultaneously compel abortion clinics to hand out info about the implications of abortion for mental health, breast cancer, and future child-bearing? Or would it be inappropriately political to require doctors to give their patients the facts they really need to give informed consent?

A story of free speech and perseverance

by 1 Comment

A beautiful column about Linda Gibbons from Nigel Hannaford of the Calgary Herald. Certainly it is a free speech story, a pro-life story and a story of perseverance, at the same time.  

This could be a free speech story, or a pro-life story, or just a story about plain old perseverance. You decide.

Earlier this year, abortion provider Henry Morgentaler got his Order of Canada.

A lot of people hated the idea, but whether or not one approves of what he was doing — full disclosure, I do not — one has to concede he believed in it strongly enough to go to jail, rather than yield. If you agree with him, he’s a brave man.

If you don’t agree with him, you should still allow he has the courage of his convictions, and this martyr factor is part of what makes him so appealing to his supporters.

What then shall we say of pro-life activist Linda Gibbons, who has spent 75 months of the last 14 years in jail for protesting Morgentaler’s trade? After all, it’s a mirror image. When abortion was against the law, one man challenged it and in the end, was acclaimed for it.

 Courageous, indeed.

Peggy on Palin

by Leave a Comment

Two readers have pointed to Peggy Noonan’s piece on Palin. Indeed, it is worth a read–she is way more positive about Palin’s performance than I, and way more experienced to comment with authority, too. Reading and listening to American sources, in particular the right-of-centre ones–lead to a better understanding of America, these days in particular.

I don’t think Canadians really get how much Americans hate the mere idea of a bailout package, and this is where I thought Palin was incredibly weak last night. (Even Jay Leno made fun of the bailout, after making fun of Palin, on his show last night.) She could have capitalized on Washington greed, instead of focussing on Wall Street.

Anyway, if Noonan thinks she was this good, it’s worth taking note.

Meta