I don’t have time this morn to comment on the study or the findings, but I thought I’d link to an article (which contains a link to the original study) for those of you who want to dig into the materials.

Researchers found 40% of these women mentioning something financial, 36% in some way discussing the bad “timing” of the pregnancy, 31% raising a partner issue, 29% speaking of “other children,” 20% talking of the child somehow interfering with future opportunities.

Less than 20% mentioned something about not being emotionally or mentally prepared (19%), health related reasons (12%), wanting a better life than she could provide (12%), not being independent or mature enough (7%), influence of family or friends, and not wanting to have a baby or to place a baby up for adoption (4%). [1]

These do not add to 100%, of course, because women tended to give more than one reason. And some other important qualifications need to be made to give a proper analysis

Looking more carefully at the data

These responses reflect a women’s self-reported subjective assessment, not some independent analysis of her situation. As such, it is a good guide to her perceptions (or at least to her beliefs about what others will consider an acceptable justification). But they do not necessarily tell us the facts about her circumstances.

For example, though we know from demographic data reported by the authors that 45% of women participating in the survey were receiving public assistance and that a considerable portion (40%) were not able to indicate that they had “enough money in the past month to meet basic needs,” we do not know what these women’s precise income was or what mix of public and private resources were available in their communities.

Would they have arrived at the same conclusion if someone had sat down with them, looked at the sort of resources available to them, and given them the sort of budget planning advice and assistance that is available at many local pregnancy care centers?

Horrifying. Andrea posted about this story this morning.

Arellano said she held up her sign to protect herself, at which point the man threw the bottle and threw her to the ground.

“One of his punches landed on my head, giving me a concussion,” she said.

While still on the ground, Arellano reached for the man’s jacket as he was turning to leave the scene, screaming for someone to call the police. At that point, the man pulled out a knife, with what looked to Arellano to have a 6 inch blade, “like a kitchen knife, but wider.”

“I yelled and yelled to the people to call the cops. That’s really what irked him, and that’s when I saw him pull the knife on me, ready to just finish me off,” she said.

Thankfully, such violence directed at pro-lifers is fairly rare in Canada. But hold on – is it? We regularly hear about pro-life displays being ripped up, stolen or destroyed; signs being defaced; students having liters of milk dumped on them; demonstrators being spat on or having condoms whipped at them.

So is violence against pro-lifers rare? I recently re-read this post that Andrea published last year. In the comments section, pro-lifers and pro-choicers argue about violence over the abortion issue.

And it’s not like we have stats to analyze.

Thoughts?

Yup.

This conversation shouldn’t be necessary. I shouldn’t need to explain why it’s insane for anyone — particularly other women — to have such contempt and hostility for “stay at home” mothers. Are we really so shallow? Are we really so confused? Are we really the first culture in the history of mankind to fail to grasp the glory and seriousness of motherhood? The pagans deified Maternity and turned it into a goddess. We’ve gone the other direction; we treat it like a disease or an obstacle…

Yes, my wife is JUST a mother. JUST. She JUST brings forth life into the universe, and she JUST shapes and molds and raises those lives. She JUST manages, directs and maintains the workings of the household, while caring for children who JUST rely on her for everything. She JUST teaches our twins how to be human beings, and, as they grow, she will JUST train them in all things, from morals, to manners, to the ABC’s, to hygiene, etc. She is JUST my spiritual foundation and the rock on which our family is built. She is JUST everything to everyone. And society would JUST fall apart at the seams if she, and her fellow moms, failed in any of the tasks I outlined.

Yes, she is just a mother. Which is sort of like looking at the sky and saying, “hey, it’s just the sun.”

photo credit: ~PhotograTree~ via photopin cc

Today we wrap up our interview with Marie-Claire Reer, President of 1Flesh. You can check out part 1 here and part 2 here.

Faye: Marie-Claire, thanks for coming back. Today we’re going to talk about a few things that are a bit controversial but I think are definitely worth discussing.

I’ve heard some pro-lifers says that some birth control pills are abortifacients. Others have said that the science isn’t definitive yet. Does 1Flesh take a position on that debate? What do you believe the science demonstrates?

Marie-Claire: 1Flesh has made a huge effort in the last year to make sure what we present to the public are solid facts. We try not to get into debates. That being said, birth control pills can be (not absolutely or always) abortive.  Without going into the science of it all, I’ll give a very simplistic explanation: Birth control is effective at preventing conception, in part, by creating a hostile environment for sperm. However, sperm can beat the odds and reach a woman’s eggs (conception). This hostile environment for sperm also, consequently, creates a hostile environment for a fertilized egg to implant in. If the fertilized egg (baby) cannot implant in a woman’s uterus, it dies. What is most troubling about this, especial for pro-life woman and couples, is that this can all take place without a woman’s knowledge. A woman or couple on birth control could have (again not absolutely or always) at one point in time (or many points in time) been carrying a child and would not have know that their birth control was killing their baby.

Faye: How can NFP help couples struggling with infertility? It sometimes seems that IVF is the only option.

Marie-Claire: Natural family planning effectively identifies fertile and infertile periods of a woman’s cycle. Many couples use this information to avoid becoming pregnant. The same information, however, can help couples achieve pregnancy, especially those struggling with infertility. Natural Procreative Technology, also known as Naprotechnology, provides a specific example. This practice of medicine uses a woman’s fertility charts used in natural family planning to diagnosis and treat health problems that may cause infertility. When couples struggle getting pregnant, it can be just as or more frustrating than trying to avoid pregnancy. In these instances, a women’s fertility or lack of fertility appears as the enemy. Just as fighting the body, however, in order to avoid pregnancy can be harmful, fighting the body in order to become pregnant can create more damage.

Many doctors and the infertility industry in general place woman on many [expensive] “treatments” in order to achieve pregnancy but ignore the reason behind the infertility. It would be healthier for doctors to identify the root cause of a couple’s infertility and treat their condition[s].  This is how natural family planning to achieve pregnancy works. It allows couples to achieve pregnancy naturally while also improving their overall health and fertility. This also keeps the health problem[s] causing infertility from developing to a potentially life threatening problem or permanent infertility. Additionally, natural family planning, when used to treat infertility, results in lower birth defects and fewer miscarriages than other “treatments.” It is also significantly more affordable.

Faye:When I first learned of Naprotechnology, I thought it was revolutionary. I actually know some people for whom it has worked wonders. They’re either expecting or have already had their “Napro” babies. It’s so exciting.

So “Bring Sexy Back” is a tagline 1Flesh uses in its promotional materials. Why was it chosen?

Marie-Claire: We chose “bring sexy back” because we believe embracing a women’s natural fertility cycle is sexy. Sex doesn’t need all these add-ons and pressures. Natural sex is sexy. Additionally, natural family planning has no consequences on a person’s sex drive, hormonal levels, or sexual pleasure. 1Flesh believes that a person’s sexuality should not be hindered in order to meet a man or woman’s needs. If a couple is not in the position to have children, they should not have to compromise their bodies, and therefore the fullness of sex, in order to postpone pregnancy.

By promoting effective, natural methods of family planning, 1Flesh wishes to empower women to understand and work with their own fertility in way that includes their natural, healthy sexuality — and that’s bringing sexy back.

[Read more…]

Today we’re back with Marie-Claire Reer, the President of 1Flesh. Today we pick up where we left off yesterday, and we’ll be discussing Natural Family Planning (NFP) and its effectiveness. Tomorrow we’ll get into the topic of abortifacients and how college students are responding to 1Flesh’s message.

Faye: Thanks for coming back Marie-Claire! I find a lot of people aren’t at all familiar with NFP. I know I wasn’t until about a year ago. In a nutshell, what is it?

Marie-Claire: In one sentence: natural family planning (or fertility awareness, or organic family planning) is a way to work with a woman’s natural fertility to effectively avoid or achieve pregnancy.

Faye: How is it effective in comparison to the pill or barrier methods, such as condoms?

Marie-Claire: Natural family planning is actually more effective than the pill, barrier methods, and condoms so long as it is taught correctly. The Couple to Couple League and the FertilityCare Center of America, among other organization, teach methods of family planning that are over 99% effective.

Faye: Is this our grandmothers’ rhythm method?

Marie-Claire: No. The rhythm method was a “cute” way of guessing when a woman is fertile based off the length of her previous cycles. Natural family planning has NO guessing. It is all science-based.

[Read more…]

Yesterday, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada released an updated version of our report Provincial Decisions: Abortion Funding in Canada. It was timed to coincide with tomorrow’s Defund Abortion Rallies in Ontario.

The report finds, shocking!, that there is no statutory requirement that abortions be funded in Canada. Provinces can decide for themselves whether or not they’ll fund abortions.

And this report is in a new format, which means it’s super attractive and sparkly. All reports should be sparkly.

Download a copy. To learn more about your local Defund Abortion rally event, click here.

As part of our new series of interviews with fabulous pro-life women, today we’re featuring part 1 of our interview with Marie-Claire Reer, who is the President of 1Flesh. Today we’ll get to know the woman behind the title and tomorrow and Friday we’ll get into some interesting topics. We’ll be talking about issues like whether birth control pills are abortifacients and how natural family planning methods can help couples struggling with infertility. Stay tuned!

Faye: Thanks for joining us at PWPL for an interview Marie-Claire! Why don’t we start with a few ‘get-to-know-you’ questions. When you’re not busy with 1Flesh, how do you spend your time?

Marie-Claire: I went to school for architecture and currently work at an architecture firm in Austin, Texas. I recently married the love of my life and my best friend, Michael.  We just returned from a two-week honeymoon in Scotland, which was truly beautiful.  I have two brothers, both younger, who hope to become engineers someday. I have a close relationship with my family. We would travel a lot grown up which created many good memories.

My hobbies include boating on Lake Austin, going to live concerts, and swing dancing.  My husband and I love hiking and snow skiing.  On Friday nights we tend to host dinner parties (he usually does the cooking!). We have a great group of friends who come over to discuss everything from politics and religion to Texas football rivalries.

[Read more…]

This video has made the rounds but I just watched it now. It’s as powerful as promised. When a man discovered that he and his wife were expecting a child with Down Syndrome, he pressured his wife to abort. She refused. Months after the child was born, he had a change of heart about his daughter and a few years later, wrote a letter explaining himself to his daughter and sharing how she changed his life.

Watch the video here.

Canadian lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos talks defamation law and legal strategy regarding the Joyce Arthur defamation case:

There are very basic and straightforward defenses to defamation. These include that the impugned statements were true, made in good faith with the reasonable belief that they were true or were personal opinion. As a lawyer, if I had a client seek my advice after being sued for making defamatory statements of fact, the first question I would ask is if the statements were true. If they were, that’s how we would defend the claim. If the statements turned out not to be true, then the next question I would ask is whether the person knew that the statements were true when they were making them. If so, then this, “good faith” would be our second possible defence.

It’s only if and when I conclude that these straightforward defenses are not available that I would start to look at other possible defenses like, the comments were not about the Vancouver CPCs specifically, but rather, CPCs in North America generally. Again, Arthur and the Pro-CAN’s argument is a clever one that has been used before, but it’s not, at least in my opinion, the easiest, simplest or strongest argument to a defamation suit. If you read Arthur and the Pro-CAN’s written arguments, which I have done, you see that Arthur and the Pro-CAN do not spend their efforts arguing that the contents of the Report were being true and accurate. Rather, they focussed on this weak and last resort argument about who the impugned statements in the Report were targeting. Lawyers need to advance the best possible argument for their clients. This leads me to believe that the ‘truth’ argument was not, in this case, the best argument for Arthur and the Pro-CAN.

I don’t want to speak for Ms. Arthur and the Pro-CAN, but it is my opinion that they made this argument because it was the only one available, meaning that they knew that the contents of the Report were not true or were not wholly true.

Read the rest here.

After seeing this photo of a military dad watching his twins’ birth via Skype all the way from Afghanistan, it’s easy to understand why it’s going viral. I mean, we hear about soldiers witnessing their children’s deliveries while stationed overseas all the time, but it’s not very often that the actual moment is captured on film.

But luckily, someone had a camera nearby when Colton Romney was watching his wife, Shannon, undergoing a C-section to welcome their twin daughters, Liberty and Lauren, into this world. This allowed Shannon to see his reaction even though he wasn’t physically there with her.

(The video interview is worth a watch.)