It’s a good interview. Mr. Wappel discusses the Charter amending provision. I haven’t heard anyone make that point yet.

And Mr. Wappel also asks, “What’s next? Euthanasia?”

Yup. What is next?

Check it out here.

Andrea has been called many things in her years of pro-life work. Today, the Post referred to her as an “abortion foe.”

And she now refers to herself as a “big slice of heaven.” Seriously. I got a text message to that effect last night.

(My husband may or may not have given her a particularly sappy birthday card from us. Which may or may not have referred to her birthday as a “big slice of heaven.” Going forward of course, I (and we?) need to now refer to Ms. Mrozek as a “big slice of heaven.”)

See the Post article here.

_______________

Andrea adds: It was quite a card, I must say!

Very cool. Go Sun News.

With deaths linked to certain forms of contraception, NFP is something we should be talking about. Very pro-woman and very empowering.

Watch the clip here. For more information on NFP, visit 1Flesh.org.

On this excellent op-ed that ran in the National Post.

As most of you know, Justin Trudeau stated last week that going forward, all Liberal MPs are expected to be pro-choice.

Two points I want to highlight from Mr. Wappel’s piece:

In 1990, I ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, again espousing, amongst other things, my belief that we should work to respect life, from conception to natural death. The issue of abortion was debated amongst the candidates at various Liberal forums. All candidates were allowed to address the convention, and the nation, since it was being covered by the press. There was no censorship of what a candidate could say or think or address the convention about. The Liberal Party survived this now apparently heretical approach, and went on to win a crushing victory in the 1993 election.

Please note that abortion was debated and the sky did not fall. Nor did the Liberal Party self-destruct.

I appreciate the historical perspective he’s bringing to this debate. Or media mess. Or however you want to characterize the firestorm Mr. Trudeau started. There I go characterizing…

Such a unilateral decree is an affront to the historical principles of liberalism. It amounts to saying, if we cannot stop people from talking about something we don’t want to talk about, then let us just ban them from the room and the topic will magically disappear. This is naïve at best and dictatorial at worst. It is to be decried as unprincipled, undemocratic, unappreciative, and intellectually bankrupt. Surely I am not the only Liberal who cannot support such an edict, such a leader, such an abandonment of democratic principles of fairness, openness, free speech and healthy public policy debate.

There should be nothing scary about open debate. Let the voters decide what is important to them. Seems like the democratic thing to do.

Thanks Mr. Wappel.

I just copied this off Hansard. Word for word:

Question No. 340–

Mr. Sean Casey:

With regard to the purchase of cosmetics by Ministers’ offices, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries, since December 13, 2011: (a) how much money has each Minister’s office, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary spent on (i) cosmetics, (ii) hair products, (iii) beauty supplies; (b) what were the dates of each purchase; and (c) what were the brands and names of the individual products purchased?

So we can’t debate human dignity or when human life begins, but we will discuss, in our great chamber, cosmetic brands.

(Look, I don’t want my tax dollars going towards mascara either, but I’m just saying….)

…Niki Ashton’s motion does prove that the abortion issue isn’t settled in Canada:

Ms. Ashton said her motion is simply about recognizing women’s rights: “This is not about reopening the debate,” she said on Monday.

But anti-abortion activist Mike Schouten said the Ashton motion acknowledges “that abortion is not a settled issue in Canada.”

“We see this as a positive development. We think the debate needs to be had,” said Mr. Schouten, campaign director of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

But Niki Ashton is also right. Her motion doesn’t “reopen the debate.” As I’ve noted before, the debate was never closed. Or over. Or whatever. That would presume all Canadians feel the same way about abortion in Canada, and that’s not the case. Nor has it ever been.

I just made a donation. (Going with ‘better late than never’ Andrea…sorry!)
They have four more days to go and they are at 99% percent of their target amount of 2.1 million dollars. And if you donate, you can choose a perk – like free copies of the DVD itself. Not too shabby. You’d probably buy the DVD anyway!

So Justin Trudeau said yesterday that pro-life candidates cannot run for the Liberal party. Quote:

“It’s not for any government to legislate what happens – what a woman chooses to do with her body, and that is the bottom line,” the Liberal Leader said. “I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.”

And Justin Trudeau said candidates also have to support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote:

“That’s part of the green-light process,” he said. “We check on a number of issues: How do you feel about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how do you feel about same-sex marriage, how do you feel about pro-choice, where are you on that?”

Justin Trudeau is a big fan of the values enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote:

“Today marks one of the most important days in our country’s history: the anniversary of the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It was more than 30 years ago that we set out to identify and enshrine the values that define our rights and responsibilities as Canadians; the Charter was the result. Three decades later, the principles of democracy, equality and fairness embodied in the Charter continue to reflect the very best of Canada and Canadians.

Embraced by our own citizens and emulated by democracies around the world, the Charter stands as a document that is both profoundly empowering and profoundly Canadian. It is our enduring responsibility as Canadians to ensure that these rights and freedoms are always upheld and preserved, never devalued or diminished.

And what is the VERY FIRST “fundamental freedom” guaranteed by the Charter to each Canadian? Let’s take a look:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

Now the Charter protects citizens from unreasonable violations of their Charter rights and freedoms from government interference. So it doesn’t come into play in the relationship between MPs and their political party. But if Justin Trudeau holds the values that the Charter espouses so dear, like freedom of conscience for all Canadians, then how can he possibly require that MPs violate their consciences, or leave them at the door when they walk into the House of Commons?

Another response to the hysteria surrounding the New Brunswick Morgentaler Clinic closure from Peter Ryan, the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Right to Life Association:

Some will retort, “But abortion is legal.” As if that settles the argument. It does not, for three reasons.

First, the argument is a non sequitur. It is legal for me to build a rocket ship and fly to the moon. It does not follow the government has to pay for it.

Second, there is no Canadian legislation defining abortion’s legality. The 1988 Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court addressed the criminality of abortion, not public funding. No Canadian court has ruled the Charters of Rights requires a province to fund unrestricted abortion at a private clinic. It is an open issue.

Third, it is dishonorable to hide behind the law. Slavery was once legal. It was legal for Nazis to kill Jews. That did not make those activities just. Those who argue “abortion is legal” must explain why that is just, and cannot skirt the truth that abortion kills a child.

Read the rest here. And if you haven’t signed the petition yet, please go do it now.

Just thought I would draw your attention again to these two brief resources which explain the law on health care funding in Canada for “medically necessary” services and how abortions are not required by law to be funded by the provinces. Perhaps they’ll be helpful if you’re writing an op-ed piece or something along those lines. Both resources are from The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

• Provincial Decisions: Abortion Funding in Canada
• Busting the Three Biggest Myths on the Government Funding of Abortions

Here’s an excerpt from the blog post I wrote:

The facts on abortion funding mean that there is room for pro-life advocacy and engagement.

Provincial Ministers of Health could and should be persuaded to reconsider their provinces healthcare priorities. Attention may be drawn to the associations of physicians who are making clear, compelling and public statements about proper and comprehensive healthcare for women, and how this healthcare need not include the aborting of children.

This is not a hopeless cause. Public opinion is split on the issue, with less than half of Canadians supporting the general trend of government funding for abortions on demand. A 2010 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that only 44% of respondents believed that our “health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested.” 39% believed the procedures should only be funded in cases of emergencies and 10% believed that abortions should never be funded.

While it may have been a complex task to untangle the legislation and policies relating to abortion funding, our advocacy work going forward need not be. The message is simple: our tax dollars don’t need to fund abortions.