Confusion reigns in pro-choice camps over the closure of the New Brunswick Morgentaler clinic. Jonathon Van Maren touches on it here. I also write about it over at WeNeedaLaw.ca:

Farquhar is brazen in claiming that the New Brunswick government is in clear violation of the Act. I can’t imagine any lawyer worth their salt making that kind of legal assessment. In fact, Health Canada even states that it’s up to each province to determine for itself which procedures are considered medically necessary.

Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada states that the determination of whether a procedure should be deemed “medically necessary” is “a matter of professional medical judgment, based on the patient’s particular circumstances and needs.” Heck, that almost sounds like New Brunswick’s policy – two physicians assessing each patient individually, on a case by case basis, in accordance with their professional judgment.

Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves “pro-choice.” Indeed, “choice” is the governing principle of their movement. “My body, my choice” is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

Thoughts on Jesus and leadership from Brian Lilley: “Couldn’t we use a little of  that servant leadership today?”

I have to say, I see plenty of ‘servant leadership’ from the pro-lifers with whom I connect. They pour out their lives for those who can’t speak up in defence of their own lives.

I’m a member of the pro-life movement because I don’t feel like I have a choice to do otherwise. Abortion is a gross human rights violation.

But it’s the people – the people in this movement – that make fighting this fight a little…easier. If I can put it that way. It’s hard topic to think about day in and day out, but pro-lifers are some of the most selfless, loving people I have ever met. And I think that’s a great credit to this movement.

Last weekend was eventful. I developed complications following the birth of my son, and ended hitting one medical clinic and two hospitals before being hospitalized Friday night. (We also paid $52.50 in hospital parking fees over 24 hours, but that’s another issue.)

Friday afternoon, my husband and I were sitting in the waiting room of a hospital wing. At one point a hospital staffer walked by, pushing a long cart stacked with large plastic biohazard bins.

We looked at each other and realized that we were thinking the same thing: Did any of the bins contain bodies of aborted children?

I don’t even know if abortions are performed at this particular hospital, or if the bodies of children are placed in such bins following abortions.

Were we morbid? Realistic? Are such thoughts just a consequence of both of us being members of the pro-life movement?

I don’t know. But that’s where our minds went.

I really shouldn’t read the news before going to bed. But here it is:

During routine procedures at 10:00 AM Eastern time, some Members of Parliament voted “nay” when MP Woodworth asked for unanimous consent.

Under Parliamentary rules Woodworth could not, without unanimous consent, bring this Motion to a vote and his only option was to seek unanimous consent from all Members.

There are no other Parliamentary options for Motion 476. “This marks a dark and dangerous day for Canada,” Woodworth said. “Members of Parliament who voted against this motion have refused to endorse the essential principle of democratic governance which requires legal recognition of the equal worth and dignity of every member of the human family.”

If you believe so, you have an email to send today.

Stephen Woodworth, Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre today announced that he would be seeking unanimous consent in the House of Commons for Motion 476 on Thursday, April 10th at approximately 10:00 AM during Routine Proceedings in the House of Commons. Motion 476 calls on all Members of Parliament to affirm that every Canadian law must be interpreted in a manner which recognizes the equal worth and dignity of everyone who is in fact a human being.

Under Parliamentary rules Woodworth cannot, without unanimous consent, bring this Motion to a vote so he will seek the unanimous consent of Members of Parliament. During Woodworth’s Member’s Statement on Monday, March 31, 2014 he noted that “If even one Member of this House refuses to consent to this essential principle of democratic governance it will be a dark and dangerous day for Canada.”

Head over to WeNeedaLaw to send an email to your MP.

Remembering Lakisha Wilson:

Wilson’s family is still reeling in shock over her late-term abortion and consequent death at the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland. Although she reportedly died on the day of her abortion, her body was kept on life support for days, pending the harvesting of her organs.

“They didn’t value her life and her child’s, but they wanted her remains. Horrendous,” King says.

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, says, “Lakisha had her whole life ahead of her, but she died because our nation still allows abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.”

Legal and safe?

More from Operation Rescue.

When Survivor hit TV for the first time years ago, I think I was in high school. Everyone was caught up in this brand new TV program format. People were talking about it non-stop and it seemed that everyone was watching it.

Except me apparently. I worked at a pharmacy and one day between customers, I skimmed through a newspaper. One columnist wrote with disdain about this TV show. His take on it was something along the lines of: “In a world where people actually struggle every day to simply survive and feed their children, and where some still starve to death or don’t make it to end of the day for some other reason, the West feels compelled to stage such fake scenarios and call it entertainment.” As you can tell, he was pretty disgusted with the whole franchise, from which has spun many other reality TV programs.

So I never watched it. Reality TV really isn’t my thing. Okay, well, one exception. My husband and I watch 19 Kids and Counting. As a new mom, I find Michelle Duggar inspiring. If she can do it with 19 kids, I can surely make it through sleepless nights with my one, sole, tiny human.

Anyhoodle. The whole reality tv-fake-surviving-entertainment brand just isn’t for me. It just feels like it’s mocking true hardship, suffering and loss of life. I don’t know. Maybe I’m reading too much into a TV show.

And then I came across this article which describes a new TV series which seems to be largely based on The Hunger Games. The Hunger Games describes a horrific, unjust world full of horror and suffering. And now we have a TV show that seems to be based on it. For our entertainment. Yay.

Read on:

Discovery has dubbed Survival Live “the first-ever live broadcast survival show,” and in a longer synopsis on Entertainment Weekly, the network called it a “24/7 real time, multi-platform viewing experience where viewers will play a large role in each survivalist’s success or failure. The survivalists struggle will be streamed live, day and night, from the moment they are abandoned into the remote wilderness with only the clothes on their back. Viewers will have the ability to check out the survivalists biometric data to see who is physically struggling, and can elect to help them out. The survivalists will be able to build a relationship with the audience by talking to them through the cameras. That relationship could be the difference between failing to succeed on the first week or making it the full 42 days. To prosper, these survivalists will need the audience in their corner if they want to stay alive.” The final sentence of that release is so ominous, it seemed to indicate that this whole thing was an April Fools’ joke; I’m still not entirely sure it isn’t, because I’m pretty sure we were just informed by Discovery that we — the hypothetical audience — are actually responsible for keeping these reality show contestants alive…

And they’ll have to prove many: Not only must they make fire, find food, and go out searching for the nearest source of fresh water, they’re going to have to gain our sympathy so we will in turn allow them access to things like food and personal care items. The “biometric data” will, one can assume, allow us to see who is in dire need of water, who has lost the greatest amount of weight, and who is having a Lisa Whelchel–style emotional breakdown and really, really needs a hug. You will sit in your warm bed, in your temperature-controlled home, eating a bowl of Fritos with the works, and you will deny her a hug because she has not worked hard enough to make you like her. I repeat: These survivalists will need the audience in their corner if they want to stay alive.

So the network won’t let people die or kill each other in Survival Live, but at what point does this whole type of franchise become disgusting anyway? Are we there yet? I just read a book about the early church and persecution and people being thrown to the lions as entertainment. People would cheer as they watched gladiators fight to the death. Fun times for the crowds.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this, and part of this is due to lack-of-sleep-caused-by-an-adorable-newborn, but I thought I would raise it and ask for your feedback. Do these types of shows devalue life and suffering? TV viewers eat their Fritos and decide who “lives/survives” or who “dies/leaves the island”. Just based on whether they found them sympathetic? Whether they liked a contestant or not? “I like you, so you ‘live’!”

Or am I being too sensitive?

__________________________

Andrea adds: If you are too sensitive then I am too. I have never been able to stomach “reality” TV.

You’ve already read about this story. It has been shared widely on social media and mainstream news outlets are actually covering it.

Like Brian Lilley shares in the video below, I didn’t want to write or talk about this story. I gave birth to my son two weeks ago today, three weeks earlier than his due date. This story is just too much for me right now. That little humans like Jack are being used as eco-fuel… But like Brian explains, we need to talk about this story, even if we don’t want to.

And Wesley J. Smith, as always, has some powerful words to share:

Not cremated and respectfully interred, mind you: Incinerated as fuel to run the boilers.

Shocked yes, but not surprised. The law only reflects our values. In a morally polyglot society, many of us decide that what is legal is also “right.” That means, for many, abortion is morally correct—a view that immediately and logically transforms their perception of fetuses into a less-than-human “other.” Indeed, these days the moral value of fetuses depends wholly on whether they are wanted or unwelcomed.

To put it bluntly, legalizing abortion at will transformed fetuses in the minds of at least half the population into a killable caste—akin to a tumor or a vial of tainted blood—that can be destroyed at will (except in the latest stage of pregnancy, and in the USA, often even then).

What, you mean the results of the sexual revolution ain’t quaint? Casual sex? One night stands? Multiple partners? Lack of commitment? Abortion?

Shocker.

How many people will look back, years from now, at their Facebook albums with the kind of nostalgia HuffPost writes about?

There’s something about our grandparents’ wedding photos that makes us yearn old-fashioned love — the kind of love that meant just holding hands on a first date, handwritten letters (not texts), and sneaking kisses in your dad’s Cadillac.

Today is World Down Syndrome Day. While there is some debate regarding accurate statistics, the generally accepted rate is that 9 out of 10 babies screened positive for Down Syndrome are aborted.

From one mama:

There is something that pierces my soul. Something that stares me in the eyes every day. Every day I’m reminded: those who God has given life to are meant to live. I am one mom out of ten that knows the joy and beauty of having a child with Down syndrome. And I can tell you, my life is full. I love my son and I would not change him or choose a different life.