I love this: One lone American Senator (Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska) may, all by himself, jam Barack Obama’s gigantic health-care reform bill because, he says, “As it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient”.
It doesn’t matter what you think of the health care bill, or what you think of abortion, or what you think of Nebraska. What matters is this: There are still politicians in this world who stand up for their principles, even against their own party. Sure, it’s annoying (hello, understatement) to those who want that bill passed, but that’s the way representative democracy works, and it beats all the alternatives we’ve ever tried.

[cross-posted to Breakout Network]

** I will add, for this site, that this example also gives something for Canadian pro-lifers to look up to. See, Sen. Nelson’s stand may not last. He may change his mind, or there may be some compromise he’ll find acceptable. I don’t know. But at least this episode shows that there are a few politicians there who are openly and stubbornly pro-life, and who never miss a chance to act on those beliefs. It’s a democracy so many times they lose. But sometimes they win, too. And regardless of the final scorecard, what matters is living according to your conscience. Got that, Canadian politicians? Now get to it.

______________________

The cynical side of Andrea adds: He may be waiting to declare his position because he can be bought. That doesn’t void what you are saying Brigitte, in that he may prove to be the lone vote on which the whole thing falls. But it doesn’t necessarily mean he did so on principle. Could mean no one offered to scratch his back in just the right way.

______________________

Brigitte is sorry to admit that Andrea wins to one: And it’s not because I don’t like it when Andrea wins, but I was hoping for something better. Well, pfft. He caved.

David Suzuki compared inaction on climate change to slavery. on the CBC, with Evan Solomon. Here’s the excerpt:

SOLOMON: You talk about 2006. But the CBC has obtained documents that raise questions about the government’s ability to even meet that 20 percent reduction from 2006 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Today the environment minister, Jim Prentice, he did stick by that goal. But there is word that they’re thinking about giving the oil sands perhaps a different break on that.

SUZUKI: Of course.

SOLOMON: And in fact, what’s your view on that?

SUZUKI: Of course. Well, you know…

SOLOMON: And by the way, they’re saying because it is, by the way, because the oil sands creates jobs, creates money that is transferred to other provinces, and that’s their notion of the balance.

SUZUKI: You know, that’s what they used to say in the southern states. We can’t give up slavery because it’ll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that. Some things you do because they’re right. And you know, the problem is…

SOLOMON: But David, just for the record, and I know you’re passionate, but is comparing this to slavery, is that fair, to demonize the other side like that?

SUZUKI: We’re talking about the fate of all of humankind and the kind of future we’re going to leave for our children. Yes, I think this is criminal what’s going on now, to act as if the economy. Remember, the economy is a human- created construct. It’s not a law of nature. You know, some things like gravity and the speed of light, you can’t do anything about that. We can’t do anything about the fact that we’re animals, and if we don’t have clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity, we’re dead. So, surely to goodness that should come before anything else.

I am currently reading Somaly Mam’s The Road of Lost Innocence, her memoir as a sex slave in Cambodia in the late 20th century. I’m almost half-way through it, the poor girl is not 20 years old, and already she’s been raped more times than I’ve had frappucinos in my entire life. And savagely beaten. Repeatedly. And degraded. And killed inside. Because she was simply considered a piece of meat that could be bought and used at the discretion of others. This book makes me shake with fury at the injustice of it all – the fact that countless other girls, some as young as five years old, are RIGHT NOW being used as sexual slaves (sold as virgins then sown up then sold again as virgins then sown up again, etc). And David Suzuki would have us believe that not acting fast enough for his taste on climate change amounts to treating human beings the way Somaly Mam was treated?

Shame on him.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Suzuki has established in different forums that he is prepared to make outrageous statements that he hopes will remain unchallenged. I heard he walked out of a Toronto talk radio station once because he got offended. Apparently the host asked a critical question (how shocking). In short, I have come to see Suzuki as a kind of petulant mini-tyrant. Perhaps he and Diane Francis could room together or something.

A story about pro-life clubs on campuses being shut down or otherwise curtailed.

In May last year, the Canadian Federation of Students—representing 500,000 students from 80 campuses—passed a motion encouraging members (including the UVic society) to deny resources and club status to “anti-choice organizations” and promising financial support should that result in legal action. But conflict over whether student unions have the right to shut down anti-abortion clubs has long simmered on campuses across the country. The student association at Capilano University was ordered to grant status to a pro-life club after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found pro-life students had been victims of discrimination. Student unions at McGill, Guelph, Lakehead, York, Carleton and other universities have also attempted to shut clubs down. And in 2008, the University of Calgary charged student members of a pro-life club with trespassing after they refused to remove graphic images from campus.

If wearing a niqab does roughly nothing to stop men from sexually harassing women, what, pray tell, is the point of wearing one?

ProWomanProLife is up for a “Pro-Life Unity Award” over at the Pro-Life Blog Awards. Please vote for us! And while you’re at it, you might consider casting a ballot for Big Blue Wave, nominated in the Best Pro-Life Apologetics category.

Thank you to our readers who voted for us in the Canadian Blog Awards. We made it to the second round! Please vote for us again (we’re in the “political” category).

________________________

Andrea adds: Thanks to Brigitte for noticing these things!

See the story here. The bill passed without opposition, which doesn’t tell me much since I know roughly zero about politics in Uganda – either politicians there are trying to crack down for real or they’re just pretending to care. It’s also not clear what effect, if any, such a bill will have in practice, since:

Female genital mutilation is illegal in more than a dozen African countries, although laws are rarely enforced.

Not sure what good a law that’s not enforced does to these poor girls. If you know more than I do about this situation (which, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, doesn’t narrow the field very much) please add your bit in the comments.

Here’s something I wasn’t expecting: According to a recent report by the World Economic Forum, there seems to be a connection between a country’s abortion restrictions and its maternal mortality rate – the less restrictive a country is, the higher the rate of maternal mortality.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM)  A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality, and those with permissive laws often lag. According to the report, the pro-life nation of Ireland has topped the global rankings once again with the best maternal health performance.

[…]

Both Ireland and Poland, favorite targets of the abortion lobby for their strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios than the United States. Ireland ranks first in the survey with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. In recent years Poland has tightened its abortion law and ranks number 27 on the list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the maternal mortality ratio is 17 out of 100,000 live births.

Other regions of the world show similar trends. The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent’s most protective laws for the unborn.  On the other end of the spectrum is Ethiopia, which has decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to global abortion lobby pressure. Ethiopia’s maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius. South Africa has the continent’s most liberal abortion laws and also a high maternal mortality ratio of 400 deaths per 100,000.

Chile, with constitutional protection for the unborn, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place for women to bear children. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used for liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the “attainment of safe motherhood” by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion.

The full report, which I don’t have time to read at the moment, is here. I am both surprised and puzzled – surprised because I would have thought maternal mortality rates had more to do with a country’s overall health and wealth outcomes than with its abortion law or lack thereof. And puzzled because the story doesn’t say anything about what could possibly account for such a relationship (which I am not assuming is causal; it could be, or maybe there’s something else at play, I just don’t know). Maybe the full report explains things a bit better but even if it doesn’t, the numbers quoted above are interesting enough to make us pay attention. What if reducing the number of abortions (if I had my druthers, we’d accomplish this through a change in the culture, not a change in the legal system) really did help improve outcomes for mothers?

______________________

Andrea adds: Abortion is profoundly unfriendly to women–this remains true in spite of a successful public relations campaign to the contrary. So these sorts of result, however casually related, don’t surprise me.  True care for women shouldn’t involve abortion, no matter the prevailing zeitgeist, because abortion is not compassionate or caring.

Wow! I never would have thought…

Differing roles in prehistoric times have evolved into different shopping styles, U.S. researchers say. “While women spent their days gathering food, often with children, men were hunters who made specific plans about how to catch and kill their prey,” The Daily Telegraph reports. Prof. Daniel Kruger of the University of Michigan, who led the study, said:

“When gathering, women must be very adept at choosing just the right colour, texture and smell to ensure food safety and quality,” he explained. “They must also time harvests … In modern terms, women are much more likely than men to know when a specific type of item will go on sale. Women also spend much more time choosing the perfect fabric, colour and texture.”

In prehistoric times, men had to hunt for specific items, which meant they had to be clinical in their approach as they are now with shopping. “Men often have a specific item in mind and want to get in, get it and get out,” he said. “It’s critical to get meat home as quickly as possible. Taking young children isn’t safe in a hunt and would likely hinder progress.”

_______________________

Andrea adds: Oh for Pete’s sake. Why so many researchers devoting themselves to dumb projects?

A young Ottawa-based researcher thinks she may have found something that would help adult brains repair themselves:

Her experiments, which build on the growing understanding of how a baby’s brain is different from that of an adult, could lead to novel therapies for brain or spinal cord injuries.

Until about the age of two, the neurons in the human brain are still growing, stretching out long arms known as axons to form connections and build networks and circuits. After that, experience and learning shape those connections largely through pruning, said Dr. Smith, now 32 and running her own lab at Carleton University. Superfluous connections are trimmed; those used more frequently are strengthened in a variety of ways that don’t involve the growth of axons.

This suggests that a mechanism must kick in during the toddler years to prevent neurons from growing and forming new connections, said Dr. Smith, who moved back to Canada in 2008 after doing post-doctoral work at Harvard University.

“There are signals from the brain saying, ‘Okay, the connections are formed, there is no need for you to grow.’ ”

Dr. Smith suspects this could be what prevents injured neurons in the brains and spinal cords of adults from repairing themselves.

Now, she and colleagues at Harvard have a found a molecule that appears to put the brakes on neuron growth in adult mice.

It is called SOCS3. When the scientists blocked it in adult mice with crushed optic nerves, the damaged neurons began to sprout.

Some of the new growth reached as far as the brain. The next step is to see if this is enough to restore the vision of the blind mice, said Dr. Smith, who reported her findings Thursday in the journal Neuron.

Can you imagine the potential?