Click on the image to play the CBC interview with Andrea Mrozek about the overturning of Roe v Wade and the newly formed coalition of women who are celebrating the fall of Roe.
Newly Formed Coalition of Women Celebrate the End of Roe v Wade
Press Release:
It’s been almost one hundred years since the infamous Person’s Case in Canada that inspired the simple headline: Women are Persons. That case reminds us that too often it takes a long time to correct bad law. Waiting for the Supreme Court in the United States to release their final decision about Roe v. Wade caused three Canadian women to consider how long overdue, it is that this bad law be overturned. Three unaffiliated women, Jakki Jeffs, Executive Director of Alliance for Life Ontario, Tabitha Ewert, Legal Counsel for We Need A Law, and Andrea Mrozek, Senior Fellow at Cardus and creator of ProWomanProLife.org led the charge to make it clear that pro-life women exist en masse in Canada and we want our voices to be heard.
We decided to aim for an initial one hundred women to sign our statement on why it is encouraging that Roe v Wade be overturned. While this is an American decision with no bearing on Canadian law, we are aware that this decision will be discussed in Canada. We await the day that no living person be denied personhood, born or preborn, male or female and every pregnant woman has access to life affirming help in her community.
One hundred women signed easily and quickly. Sailing through that goal we now go public seeking a thousand and then a hundred thousand signatures of women across Canada, unaffiliated but for the purpose of saying we unabashedly applaud the overturning of Roe v Wade.
“It’s emotional for me. For so many women, who feel underrepresented in the public square, the fall of Roe is deeply significant and encouraging,” said Andrea Mrozek. “While there remains a long way to go in making abortion unthinkable, this is a very encouraging step, and long overdue, Women deserve way better than abortion,” said Jakki Jeffs. “Roe was very bad law, based on a fabricated right to privacy,” said Tabitha Ewert. “On that basis alone, it could not stand, and the court was right to overturn it,” she added.
It is the hope of this limited coalition that the voices of pro-life women would be heard. Other women who wish to sign on can do so by going here.
We are non-religious, non-partisan and non-sectarian and stand united in opposition to abortion. One hundred women, seeking personhood, for all, so that one hundred years from the personhood case, the voices of all, with or without power in the world, might be heard.
-30-
Contact:
Andrea Mrozek – 613.241.4500 ext..503
Tabitha Ewert – 604 220 1258
Jakki Jeffs – 519 820 3399 (cell) 519 821 9604 (office)
A Statement on Roe v Wade from Pro-Life Women in Canada
Today the US Supreme Court officially released a decision overruling Roe v. Wade. While this is an American decision with no implication for Canadian law, some politicians north of the border have already politicized the issue. For all of the undersigned women, however, overturning bad law marks a point of immense encouragement. We speak out because those leaders who defend abortion do not speak for us. We speak out in defence of all human beings from their biological beginnings until death. We speak out because defending and advocating for women also means defending and advocating for our preborn children.
The following outlines some of what we believe as regards the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade:
- Roe v Wade was bad law because it fabricated a constitutional right that did not exist.
- Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey aided the falsehood that women need abortion in order to achieve equality with men. This had the consequence of idealizing male biology and pressuring women to mimic a man’s ability to walk away from sex seemingly consequence free while, for many of them, still facing the horrendous consequences of abortion.
- Women’s ability to be pregnant and carry a child is not a disability to overcome, but a reality to treasure.
- A woman who has made the choice to end her pregnancy understands how difficult this can be.
- Supporting “a right to choose” both ignores what that choice entails and does nothing to address the circumstances that led to that decision, but instead allows society to ignore them. By supporting women’s choices in the abstract, we minimize the very real difficulties women face and discourage real solutions.
- There is much more work to do for the pro-life community and society at large to truly support women. We need to change hearts, allay fears, and provide courage alongside practical and emotional support. This work is ongoing and will continue.
- Social and cultural change is needed to allow for the well being of both mother and child alongside attaining legal protection for every human life from its biological beginnings until natural death.
- It is a good thing when unjust laws are overturned. Therefore, we are deeply encouraged and hopeful that future laws will no longer adhere to an immoral, reprehensible standard that harmed so many women and men and killed so many children.
We, the undersigned, are women who stand united in opposition to abortion. We see the end of Roe v Wade as encouraging, yet find our voices inadequately represented in the public square. We pledge to ensure that this changes in the future as we make this joint statement.
Contacts
Tabitha Ewert – 604 220 1258
Jakki Jeffs – 519 820 3399 (cell) 519 821 9604 (office)
Andrea Mrozek – 613.241.4500 ext. 503
Current Signatories
The following 0 women have signed up. The list will be updated daily.
The Mythical Gender Dichotomy in the Abortion Debate
Last summer, I was privileged to listen in on two fascinating online debates between pro-life and pro-choice activists.
The first debate was hosted by Harvard Right to Life and Massachusetts Citizens for Life. It featured Stephanie Gray Connors, an astoundingly articulate pro-life activist, gifted apologist, published author, and founder of the Love Unleashes Life ministry. The pro-choice representative was infamous ethicist Dr. Peter Singer, who is often known for his controversial comments about disabilities, including asserting that parents should be permitted to euthanize children with disabilities like Down Syndrome and spina bifida.
The second debate was a joint effort by three student clubs—the Health and Medical Law Society, Students for Free Speech York U, and Youth Protecting Youth—at York University. Maaike Rosendal, who works for the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, similarly did an extraordinary job communicating the pro-life position with compassion, clarity, and conviction. The pro-choice representative was Dr. Fraser Fellows, a now retired late-term abortionist.
While I of course appreciated the lengthy and in-depth debate, I couldn’t help but notice that there was a clear gender division. In both debates, the pro-life movement was represented by a female speaker and the pro-choice movement was represented by a male speaker. This seems to run completely contrary to the mainstream mythology that the pro-life movement is filled with grouchy old Catholic men wanting to force their beliefs and rosaries onto women (seen, for instance, in the “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” chant) and that the pro-choice movement is filled with female feminists who are resisting male oppression (see, for example, the “no uterus, no opinion” slogan).
I do not find the fact that these debates featured female pro-life speakers and male pro-choice speakers as inherently problematic or particularly surprising. As someone who has been involved with pro-life activism for over a decade, my experience with the abortion debate is that women make up the vast majority of the pro-life movement (contrary to the stereotypes peddled by abortion advocates). And, as someone who has been a student of this issue for the better part of 13 years, I’m also very alive to the fact that men have been intimately involved in promulgating and perpetuating the practice of abortion (including the all-male group of judges in the Supreme Court of the United States Roe v Wade decision, the mostly male group of judges in the Supreme Court of Canada R v Morgentaler decision, the mostly male politicians who will have crafted the permissive abortion regime in Canada, and the many male abortionists who have performed countless abortions over the course of their careers – including the venerable Henry Morgentaler himself).
And so, we return to these two debates. I think these two debates make it quite clear that there is no such thing as the mythical anti-abortion male mob seeking to enslave the bodies of the pro-abortion female freedom fighters. Stephanie Gray Connors and Maaike Rosendal are eloquent, articulate, and passionate pro-life women who have committed their lives to being a voice for the pre-born, including taking a stand in public debates against the pro-choice men who seek to preserve the status quo on abortion.
In short, contrary to how pro-choice activists and pro-abortion feminists have tried to frame this debate, there are women and men on both sides of the issue. To frame the issue of abortion as being about women only—women’s rights, women’s interests, and women’s efforts—is patently untrue and deliberately misrepresentative of the depth and breadth of the issue.
I am not someone who believes that only women should have a voice on the issue of abortion, which has severe consequences on men and women across the country.
If there can be pro-choice men like Dr. Peter Singer who defend abortion access and pro-abortion men like Dr. Fraser Fellows who perform abortions, then there can also be pro-life men who work to protect vulnerable pre-born children and promote a culture of life.
This is not simply a woman’s issue. It is ultimately a human issue.
This is not simply about women’s rights. It is ultimately about human rights.
Settle down or ‘lean in’?
Women! Settle down sooner! As someone who received this advice often enough, it’s worth mentioning why it’s unhelpful. Women certainly are not exempt from making wise relationship and life decisions, but there’s no point in gearing this advice exclusively to women when men need it too–along with just about every aspect of our culture. In this article, published in National Review, I touch on why it’s harder than many think to simply settle down.
Feminists must ‘reconcile with their roots’, pro-life mission
An article about a recent talk I did for the deVeber Institute about the interplay between being pro-life and the feminist movement.
The original feminist movement, the abolitionists seeking an end to slavery and then the suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th century, were actually more pro-women and would have more in common with pro-lifers today, argues Mrozek, who spoke on the issue at the annual deVeber Institute Lecture Nov. 8 in Toronto.
“Really, the onus isn’t on pro-lifers to reconcile that,” she told The Catholic Register. “The onus is on the second-wave feminists to reconcile with their own roots.”
The evolution of thought came in the 1960s and the “Sexual Revolution” with its strong emphasis on “so-called reproductive rights.” That launched this second wave and took the women’s movement on a hard turn away from its roots, said Mrozek. It led to a splintering of the movement, with a “lack of a common cause because it has left behind its classical liberal roots that would allow for freedom to prevail.”
Second wave feminists silence pro-life women, where they should be embracing their own pro-life roots.
Freedom is a pro-life talking point
An unlikely pro-life spokeswoman in Mindy Kaling. Read more on Convivium.
When I think pro-life talking points, I think freedom; the freedom to live a life that is not scripted or part of a checklist because even an unwanted pregnancy can become wanted. The world is filled with women, who moved from weeping at the sign of two lines on a stick to joy at the birth of their children.
And they call this “feminist”
The Canadian budget document, #YourBudget2018, is easily one of the more patronizing government documents I’ve ever read.
So I wrote this column about it in the National Post.
Imagine with me for a second that the budget focused so much on men. Imagine that Budget 2018 referenced men 708 times instead of women. Men — we need to coax you into nursing! Men — not enough of you are kindergarten teachers! Men — don’t take time off with your children when they are young! Men — you can’t choose more paternity benefits — these are “use it or lose it” for women, only! If that sounds pushy, it’s because it is.
Welcome to the world of “feminism means what I say it means,” courtesy of our current Liberal government.
“Trudeau can call abortion a right but that won’t make it true”
A slightly re-written version of the Convivium article by Faye Sonier and myself posted on Huffington Post. I’m grateful for their willingness to engage both sides of the Canada Summer Jobs debatedebacle.
There are many hostile thoughts below the piece. Few of them constitute an actual argument, however. Very few engage the thinking in the piece, or mention the concept of competing rights. And God bless the lone man for stating over and over that abortion is killing and therefore not a choice. Wouldn’t you know it–he gets slandered for being backward because he is Muslim (which incidentally, the rude commenters are guessing at. It may be a reasonable guess, because he comments under the name Muhammed, but we don’t know this for sure.)
Witness the grosteque face of “diversity” among those who pat themselves on the back for being “progressive” and “tolerant.”
There are, in fact, numerous democratically legitimate arguments against declaring abortion a right. In the early days of the abortion debate, “the clump of cells” argument worked. Not so in an ultrasound era. In the early days of the abortion debate, stigma was attached to having a child “under the wrong circumstances.” Not so today. Surveys and polls today consistently show more women than men lean pro-life. Abortion, an issue that was supposed to be “settled,” is as hotly contested as it ever was.
Just not to our bold “women’s rights” campaigner of a prime minister, surrounded by “yes” women in an apparent echo cabinet. Saying a falsehood over and over doesn’t make it true. Naming abortion as a right doesn’t make the choice any better.
It’s a choice, so that bulge in her belly? It could be anything, really. We just can’t be totally sure. Until she tells us. Got it? Got it.
Eight myths of choice
Does abortion support women’s rights or detract from them? Here, I put forward some questions and reasons why access to abortion detracts from women’s rights. Please forward to your friends who are pro-choice and feel free to tell me whether any of these arguments resonate.
Those of us who are against abortion understand that abortion attempts to equalize men and women in a manner that is both impossible and undesirable.
Does access to abortion make women the strongest they can be?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 6
- Next Page »