News

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Dear Friends of Life,

Blessed Christmas greetings to you and your loved ones.

I think God is smiling at us in the pro-life movement right here in Montreal.

As many of us are awaiting the arrival of the unborn Jesus on Christmas day, no fewer than four other unborn children have entered our lives over the past few weeks.

In the November newsletter, I wrote to you how during the recently completed Forty Days for Life prayer vigil for the end of abortion, we were visited by two pregnant moms seeking aid. Well, the dramas of these continue, for both good and ill.

In the first instance, mother and child have continued their course towards that day of their own nativity. A young woman came to us at about the mid-way point of the vigil. Anxious and alone, and frustrated by the treatment she had received at the Morgentaler mill, she sought our help and we have accompanied ever since. A couple within our prayer network have shouldered her along a bumpy road, helping where need be – sharing coffee and meals, shopping for winter clothing, and more. Their generosity has even covered various personal expenses. Though anxieties remain, she is cautiously progressing to that day of her delivery.

The second case is not as encouraging, reminiscent of the fate of the holy innocents which Sacred Scriptures narrates. The latter were those young children who were slain at the hands of an insecure and jealous king gone mad for fear of losing his kingdom at the hands of the Christ-child (Matthew 2:16-18). A similar fate occurred here in Montreal.

On the final weekend of the vigil we were visited by 20 year old Jean-Olivier. His girl-friend (18), four-weeks pregnant, was intent on aborting their child. He was crestfallen, recognizing the uniqueness of the child and desiring to be a father. He chain smoked during our conversation as well as in subsequent meetings.

His girl-friend, Linda busy with school and on a limited budget believed that now was not the right time, she could become pregnant at some future time, she reasoned. In the end, her academic ambitions reigned supreme and would not be usurped by the arrival of a little innocent one. She aborted her child two weeks ago.

The outcome of the third of these God sent children remains undetermined. Leila called at the beginning of this week. She was desperate. Eight-weeks pregnant, she was adamant about aborting her child. On calling a pregnancy resource centre, she was given a list of abortion mills. Fortunately, each had refused her because she lacked the $600 or $700 needed for the procedure. (As a foreign national, she does not have Medicare coverage and needs to pay up front.). She haggled; she would pay in instalments but was consistently refused. Providence led her with our phone number and so she called seeking to borrow money.

I listened to her story and mentioned that I would get back to her. I found a sympathetic woman, a female acquaintance, as pro-life as I am, and explained the situation to her. She agreed to call Leila. I subsequently learned that the conversation went well, that the issue was one of money for Leila wanted to keep the child but for lack of money she was desperate. I assured my acquaintance that money would be found to help her. The two were to meet the following day over coffee and discuss the matter more. Three children. Three stories.

At this time of the year we turn our attention ever more intently on the wonder of a new born, Our Saviour, nestled in the womb of his blessed mother. I think our pre-born Saviour is smiling at us, urging us along through these infants. Please use the accompanied Christmas gift to pray for these and other women who become dependent on the vultures found in our Culture of death.

May the Holy Spirit accompany you in your diocesan ministry in 2013.

Merry Christmas,

Brian A. Jenkins, Outreach Coordinator (QLC)

p.s. Earlier, I had mentioned four pre-natal children. It is with delight that I learned that one of our faithful prayer warriors, Maria, is pregnant. Please pray for her during these early stages of her pregnancy.

The following is a text, appearing in yesterday's The Province, by ethicist Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. Though she presents a fair survey of the ground of beliefs among Canadians on the topic of abortion, I believe she does a disservice, namely, advocating the middle path so as to achieve consensus in the debate for a law against abortion, a consensus that she believes is feasible in the current political climate. In so doing, she is turning her back to the weak and defenseless. Her attempt to mitigate this outome by arguing for the establishment of counseling outfits for first trimester pregnancies allays little my concern.

Your editorial, “The abortion debate is over, so shut up” is very bluntly expressed pro-choice wishful thinking on your part. This debate is not going away. It’s gaining strength.

The editorial does, however, accurately reflect a belief of many Canadians that there seems to be no way for us to reach any consensus on the law that should govern abortion, as recent votes in Parliament have consistently demonstrated. I don’t agree, but note I’ve qualified the word consensus with the adjective “any”.

I believe a majority of Canadians can find some “common ground” regarding legal regulation of abortion, but this must be distinguished from finding unanimous agreement – that’s impossible.

For many of us, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, this common ground will not be a “perfect” stance. That’s unavoidable because we live in a pluralistic society where people have vastly divergent worldviews; we don’t all share the same convictions about the intrinsic dignity and value of all human beings, from their conception to their natural death; and we disagree whether the value of respect for life or that of individual autonomy should take priority when they conflict.

The present legal situation, in Canada, defended to the death by some pro-choice advocates, is that there are and should be no legal restrictions on abortion. In stark contrast, some pro-life advocates believe that any law short of the total prohibition of abortion is unacceptable, because, agreeing to a law which still allows some abortions would constitute complicity in the evil of abortion.

Many pro-life advocates now recognize, however, that a total prohibition is not achievable, that the virtue of prudence requires them to implement the protection that is presently feasible, and protecting some unborn children is better than protecting none. Consequently, they would welcome some legal restrictions on abortion short of a complete prohibition. They rightly argue that government has an essential role to play in restricting certain activities, whereby unborn children’s human rights are violated.

Likewise, many Canadians, who would describe themselves as pro-choice, believe that some legal restrictions on abortion should be enacted.

Polls show that a majority of Canadians agree there should be some legal restrictions on abortion, whether on certain grounds such as sex selection (in one poll, 92 percent of Canadians agreed with prohibiting sex selection abortion, except for medical reasons), or after a certain period of gestation, ranging from 12 weeks to, at the latest, viability of the fetus, which the Canadian Medical Association guidelines set at 20 weeks gestation.

In short, most Canadians agree that some law to protect fetuses/unborn children is needed, although they don’t agree at which precise point it should apply.

To find some common ground, we have to stop allowing people with views at the far ends of either the pro-choice spectrum or the pro-life spectrum to dominate the debate, as they now do, especially in the mainstream media. For too long, the battles between those on each extreme have prevented the nuanced discussion with which most Canadians can identify. We need to work together and build on the existing consensus, rather than focus just on differences. In short, we need to start our discussions from where we agree, not where we disagree.

Most Canadians will agree that abortion is always a serious ethical issue, and that it is a separate question when it should become a legal issue.

We can also agree there is a big difference between not prohibiting something legally – for instance, first trimester abortion – and approving of it. Moreover, the absence of a legal prohibition does not mean that the conduct not prohibited is ethically or morally acceptable.

Choosing a 12 to 14 week cut-off, as in several European countries, before legal restrictions on abortion apply, is to focus our law on a point between having no legal restrictions on any abortion – our current situation in Canada – and having a total prohibition. I believe it’s an approach a majority of Canadians will accept, no matter on which side of the abortion debate they would classify themselves, because many Canadians hold a more nuanced position than the ones usually attributed to each side.

What I am proposing is that in the first trimester, the message that abortion is always a very serious ethical decision should be delivered through persuasion, that is, other than by using law, but after that law should be employed.

Allowing an early period in pregnancy, when women can seek unbiased counseling without fear of criminal prosecution, could help them to decide against having an abortion. That requires we ensure there are facilities readily available for crisis pregnancy counseling, which are not abortion clinics.

The most relevant analogy here is to the decriminalization of suicide to try to prevent it, because suicidal people and their families would be more likely to seek help, if they were not threatened with criminal prosecution.

And, just as we have supportive, non-coercive suicide prevention programs, we need to consider supportive, non-coercive abortion prevention programs. For instance, a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support. Such an offer is required, if for no other reason, to obtain a valid – non-coerced – informed consent to abortion, should that be the woman’s decision.

Another reason not to use law in the first trimester includes a practical consideration, namely, that the availability of chemical abortifacients means the law won’t prevent abortions in that period. Ineffective law brings the law, in general, into disrespect.

Our current lack of any legal protection of unborn children results from a total failure of our ethical imaginations as to what abortion involves. That failure is demonstrated, I suggest, by a counter example, namely, prochoice advocates’ outraged reaction to an approach that activates our ethical imaginations and moral intuitions, the display of graphic images of aborted fetuses, for instance, on Canadian university campuses.

Unrestricted abortion in the 21st Century is the equivalent of the ancient practice of putting babies on rocks to die. Many people today seem to be as blind to the wrongs of the former, as people in the past were to infanticide. I believe future generations of Canadians will look back on our current approach to abortion as one of the great human tragedies.

The present article comes to us from Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute. It is part of his weekely series of blogs. What are we, as a society, permitting our adolescents to put into their bodies, is one of the points that he brings up.

Parents are Not to Know (But They are Expected to Pay)

The day before Thanksgiving, I got a call from a harried reporter. “The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a statement on “Emergency Contraception,” he said. “I’d like to get your take on it.”

The 10-page document turns out to be a full-throated endorsement of what is euphemistically called “Plan B” (levonorgestrel manufactured by Teva Women’s Health) for kids of all ages. The current FDA rules, which limit emergency contraception to young women 17 years or older, are too restrictive, the document argues.

Those of us (including, I am guessing, a number of pediatricians) who conscientiously object to flooding immature teenage bodies with powerful, steroid-based drugs will not accept this statement on multiple grounds.

First, as everyone who has had high school biology knows, pregnancy begins at conception. To claim that pregnancy begins a week later, when the developing fetus implants in the lining of the uterus is simply not true. Since the morning-after pill sometimes operates by preventing implantation, it is ipso facto abortifacient. Therefore it is not accurately described as "emergency contraception," but as an "early-term abortion," at least in some cases.

The AAP statement attempts to dodge these problems by suggesting that the evidence of the effect of hormonal emergency contraception on the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) are “conflicting.” While admitting that some studies show that “endometrial receptivity to the implantation of a fertilized egg is impaired,” it claims that other studies show “little effect.”

This is doubly disingenuous. First, as high school biology students know—but what the physicians who drafted the AAP statement have conveniently forgotten, what implants in the lining of the uterus is not merely a “fertilized egg.” It is rather a tiny human being who is already at the blastula stage of fetal development.

Second, it has long been generally accepted in the medical world that hormonal contraception operates, at least part of the time, by preventing implantation. To claim, as the AAP statement does, that the science is not settled is to deliberately obfuscate the matter.

I am sure that there are many pediatricians and other medical professionals who do not wish to counsel, prescribe, fill prescriptions for, or refer for drugs that violate their conscience. The AAP statement nonetheless asserts that pediatricians have an ethical responsibility to "inform/educate about availability and access to emergency-contraception services." There is no ethical basis for this assertion which, if enforced, would violate the conscience of all Catholic and many Christian physicians.

Perhaps the most egregious claim of a statement which makes many such claims is that "at the policy level, pediatricians should advocate for increased non-prescription access to emergency contraception for teenagers regardless of age and for insurance coverage of emergency contraception to reduce cost barriers." Allowing 13-year-olds to buy steroid-based drugs without their parents’ foreknowledge and consent is a violation of parents’ rights and is also not in the best interest of the teenagers themselves.

Finally, someone needs to realize how much of this is driven by the profit motive. Big Pharma pays for many of these studies which assert the purported benefits of providing drugs that they manufacture to as many people as possible at the expense of the taxpayers. Such rent-seeking is typical of the kind of bureaucratic capitalism that we now see coming to dominate the medical space under Obamacare.

The following comes to us from the Population Research Institute - PRI. 

We at PRI are proud to announce the sixth episode of our highly popular YouTube cartoon series. Called “Urbanization: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad City?” it talks about why people are crowding into cities in increasing numbers.

Over the past hundred years, half the world’s population has moved country to city. Megacities with ten million or more people have sprung up as countrysides have emptied out.

But urban overcrowding should not be mistaken for overpopulation. Heavy traffic, homelessness, and long lines are not symptoms of a global glut of people, but of people seeking the good life that cities offer.

“Urbanites often complain about overcrowding,” says Steven Mosher, PRI’s president. “Yet they enjoy the economic, educational and cultural benefits that come from living in the city. This video will help them understand that they can’t have the perquisites of city life without the people that provide them. If you don’t love your neighbors you can always move to North Dakota where you won’t have any.”

“The fight against the myth of overpopulation does not have to be a bare-knuckled brawl,” continues Mosher. “These videos are funny and easy to digest, the very opposite of Al Gore's dark and boring pronouncements on the 'dangers' of too many people. Our viewers end up considering the science that supports our pro-people position, often for the very first time. We say to our skeptics: watch, laugh, and learn.”

The latest video, two minutes long, is available below, or by visiting overpopulationisamyth.com. The series has, to date, garnered over 1,500,000 views in multiple languages.

The following interview comes from the Zenit news service. Written originally in Italian by H. Sergio Mora, it was translated by Oceane Le Gall into French and from French into English by Google Translator; I tweeked the final version.

ROME, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 (ZENIT.org) - Human embryo based cosmetics, rampant euthanasia that ever gradually instills itself by "way of omission," rather than by the rule of law, and the cultural tendency to consider the patient like an oil well: all of these topics solicit the attention of the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC).

And among all these questions, one must not be forgotten, that relating to the problems of life from conception, says the president of the FIAMC, Mr. Jose Maria Simon, to the readers of Zenit during a break at the meeting of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, the European Congress of Catholic Doctors (AMCI - FEAMC), the Italian Catholic Doctors Association (AMCI) and participants of the International Conference of Catholic hospitals, which took place last Saturday, November 17, in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican.

Zenit - Dr. Simon, first tell us what is the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations?

Jose Maria Simon - This is an old institution of Pontifical Law, that forms doctors on ethical issues,  doctors as well as students and medical personnel. We also cooperate on issues related to maternity. Our work extends to the largest possible number of countries and international organizations, so that our Christian vision of medicine can be better understood and accepted.

Are there new challenges for today's medicine?

Yes, there are, but still around the same issues: not seeing his neighbor as a source of income; the defense of life from conception until natural death, and the transmission of life; respect for the dead or embryo death, which nonetheless still remains a symbol of the deceased and can not be used as we see fit.

What most worries Catholic doctors today?

To see embryonic tissue from fetuses used to make cosmetics, worries us considerably. This is a very serious thing, but that happens, and costs a lot to get evidence. When you accuse a company, it knows well how to defend itself, through lawyers and journalists. It is therefore very difficult to make specific charges; yet the facts are there, these worry us, and they must be fought.

Is there any real hope?

We expect a lot of this Charter for the medical profession, which for us is like a new Code of Ethics, the second version of which is in the process of being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The first was already rich in points, while the second will be updated to reflect medical changes.

We just talked about natural death and respect for life. What can you say about it?

There is first the problem of euthanasia which seems to be progressing, not so much in legislations but rather in practice. Currently, in many countries, we practice euthanasia by omission. Someone decides for you: family, an oncologist and so on, they determine that your life is over, it is not worth the trouble to live, so the person is sedated and dies.

So, death is induced?

Yes, and sometimes unnecessarily. It is important to understand that the mission of the physician is to eliminate the pain, the anguish, the suffering, and this must of course be done with all possible means, but without precipitating death, as it is very well stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, about euthanasia - prohibited is every action taken to avoid suffering, procures death.

Alas, this practice is gaining ground and progresses as the culture of death progresses in various areas: judicial, legislative, media, culture, including art, and so on ...

So the question is not only religious in nature?

There are many doctors in the world who respect human life, Catholic or otherwise, who need the support  and arguments on which to build.

And where do we find these arguments?

We have a lot of resources on our website - links, public statements, taken from our conference where we work with scientific publications, present progresses, science, and social studies, and interface with the media.

With Catholic doctors, we pray. We provide an ecumenical space and ethical training in medical problems. Congresses are very useful, even the free time during which it is possible to consult a colleague so as to understand how thinking on a particular issue varies from one country to another.

How are aggressive therapies lived out today?

This is something that must be fought. Any medicine, whether offical or lay, Catholic or other churches agree that abuses exist. In fact, sometimes, certain diagnoses or therapies are disproportionate to the results that may be expected.

And what of the transmission of life?

We are worried about that too. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae presents a very good doctrine in the sense that it solves a lot of the problems. Who respects it, respects his wife, and is faithful, does not kill his children via abortion, does not beget them in vitro, but procreates them naturally, and respects the fact that the embryo may die naturally.

The Humanae Vitae is the way to go?

Absolutely, it is prophetic. It may be found on the FIAMC website. Also, we are currently preparing a second document which can help a Lutheran for example. I hope that next year, on the anniversary date of the propagation of the Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem, it is possible to spread this scientific paper that supports the encyclical.

What has the FIAMC brought to the synod?

FIAMC has received more than it has given. We were able to attend the meeting of the Synod of Bishops, speak with each as well as with auditors. We met with the Catholic Medical Associations of different countries and made ourselves known. Not to mention the honor of being in contact with the Holy Father. Yet what we mainly did at the Synod was pray and in itself this was very helpful.

About abortion, today there is a lot more information and matters are clearer, yet the practice is still widespread ...

Abortion is a topic that we studied extensively. Unfortunately when the devil enters something, it is difficult to resolve it by laws or arguments; we need help from on High.

Today science clearly shows that human life can be supressed...

Today more than ever we know that from the first moment of conception, the life is a separate being, distinct from father and mother, developing in a coordinated manner, progressive, who needs "fuel" and that implanting in the mother's womb, so as to take this fuel and grow to become one of us.

Concerning embryos, is there less public awareness ...

Yes, awareness is less, although we have a visible human form. I think conscience is hindered by evil.

The cryopreserved also have human form?

Genetically, they have a human form; their DNA says: this is a human being. Here, too, conscience is blinded by evil; everyone can understand that this embryo is a human being, microscopically.

In conclusion, what is key to properly treating a patient?

I believe that good professional competence consists much more in treating patients as brothers, as children, and parents, rather than as oil wells.

Here are a few interesting articles, in print and off the net, for your perusal.

First, the Journal de Montréal provides three articles on the topic of sexually transmitted infections among Quebecers. All written by Héloise Archambault, these are:

• « Infectons sexuelles explosion des cas » – Nov. 20, 2012
• « Des cours exigés » - Nov. 20, 2012
• « Une Facture de Plus de $88 million » – Nov. 21, 2012

Culled from a report entitled "Rapport intégré: épidémiologie des infections transmissibles sexuellement et par le sang au Québec." the articles present a stark picture of the behaviour of Quebecers.

• The number of cases of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea have tripled over a 15-year period – from 6436 to 19165 for the former and from 555 to 1883 for the latter; and
• The number of cases of Syphilis, thought to be eradicated in the early 90s, has seen a rise up to 636 cases from 9 in 1997.

Also troublesome is that these figures may be an underestimate. Many of these illnesses go undetected as carriers of a disease or infection may not experience any symptom.

Even more troublesome is the absence in these articles of the many other STIs. Five were discussed; in addition to the three already mentioned, both Hepatitis C and HIV were noted. Yet, Wikipedia notes another twelve.

Finally, so goes the number of cases, so goes the teatment costs. Over the past five years, the figures have gone from $61 million to over $88 million.

And as responsible stewards, what are we doing to alleviate the physical pain and reduce the costs? The articles mentioned that several solutions are being considered, though only one was cited – education. Seemingly, the high school sex-ed course discontinued in 2001 is being reconsidered for implimentation.

I pray that abstinence will be part of the new education.

Contraception – Bayer’s Mirena IUD

Another article concerning our sexual mores comes from Stephen Mosher's blog at the Population Research Institute.

"The Mirena IUD is Becoming More Popular - and the Lawsuits are Piling Up" is about the difficulties that the pharmaceutical Bayer is having with its contraception unit. An IUD – intrauterine device, functions in various ways, thwarting the gestational process, including aborting a newly conceived child. Mosher does well in explaining the three ways in which this may occur.

Afterwards, Mosher gets into the business of the lawsuits. He writes: “You know a contraceptive drug or device is in trouble when the lawsuits begin to multiply.”

He lists the many side effects associated with using the device: amenorrhea, intermenstrual bleeding and spotting, abdominal pain, pelvic pain, ovarian cysts, headache, migraines, acne, depression, and mood swings.

He provides a link to a website - The Truth About Mirena, that contains hundreds of testimonies by women who have written detailed accounts of the side effects.

Adoptions in Quebec

For the last article that caught my attention, I return to the Journal de Montréal. In today’s edition the topic of adoption comes up, a topic of much interest to us who often encourage women to give their child up for adoption rather than abort it.

“L’étau se resserre à l’international” graphically presents, the trend among Quebecers who adopt internationally. A bar chart spanning twenty-two years illustrates the diminishment in foreign adoptions by Quebecers - from a high of 977 in 1996 to a low of 339 in 2011.

More revealing, I find, about this downward trend is the following listing of five-year averages:

• 1992 = 718 cases of foreign adoptions
• 1995 = 852
• 1998 = 848
• 2001 = 810
• 2004 = 734
• 2007 = 500
• 2010 = 461

While reading this I couldn’t help but wonder at the similar statistics for adoptions within the province.

These figures were culled from the section within the provincial Ministry of Health and Social Services called Secrétariat à l’adoption internationale.

A faithful pro-lifer sends me the following note:

Brian,

Enclosed is an interesting review on abortion and mental health.

I am sure the general public do not know the very high incidence of suicide intentions of women who underwent abortion.

Best regards,

Richard

Here's the subject review:

A friend emailed me the following excerpt from an article written by Jonathon van Maren entitled "The Reformed Case for Pro-Life Action." The full blog appears here.

It seems that there is an increasingly prevalent attitude among Christians that it is somehow wrong to ‘offend’ people, and that since pro-life activism will inevitably offend people, it should therefore be avoided.

First, I must point out that a message that involves telling the culture at large that they are murdering their children isn’t going to be popular. If it was, we wouldn’t have the problem.

Second, it is an extremely un-Christian and un-Reformed idea that just because our message of truth might not be welcomed by the world, and thus persecution may result, that we should avoid it. If Christians are so at peace with those who believe that killing unborn children is permissible that offending them is “un-Reformed”, it is perhaps necessary to take a second look at this unholy alliance and consider whether or not it is right in the eyes of God who values all life created in His image.

If churches are indeed the consciences of nations, and those consciences have fallen silent, we can scarcely be surprised that things have gone horribly wrong.

The Bible demands that we protect our unborn neighbours.

Our Reformed heritage shows us that our forbearers did not feel that it was in any way sinful to oppose evil in the public square.

Abortion is the greatest evil in our society, an evil where the innocent blood of millions cries out for justice. We cannot withdraw ourselves from our biblical mandate laid out with such clarity in Scripture to protect unborn children with weak excuses that ignore the demands of Scripture and the examples and writings of our forefathers. Hence, Christian pro-life advocates should not have to defend their action. Apathetic Christians should have to defend their inaction

Friday, November 9, 2012

Dear Friends of Life,

I trust this letter finds you well.

As for me, I am experiencing mixed feelings. On the one hand, President Obama re-election has me worried about the fate of the unborn, both south of the border and wherever U.S. policies extend. On the other hand, my faith assures me that I am on the right side as the following passage from the book of Proverbs asserts:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths. (Pv. 3)

On the first point, Lila Rose outlines five points about which the President has failed to safeguard protection for the unborn.

1. President Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times, horrifyingly voting against protecting babies who survived abortion and voting in favor of leaving them to die. A vote against this legislation was a vote for infanticide.
2. On his third day in office, President Obama repealed the pro-life “Mexico City Policy.” By doing this, President Obama made groups that perform and promote abortion eligible for U.S. foreign aid funds.
3. Planned Parenthood’s funding jumped from 33% publicly-funded to nearly 50% – over $487 million in taxpayer funding now goes to the abortion giant (under Obama and his administration). This is almost half a billion dollars that American families are forced to pay in tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
4. President Obama refused to sign an emergency budget, putting funding the military at risk, until Planned Parenthood funding was included in the budget. This was following Live Action’s Sex Trafficking Operation, showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting the sex-traffickers of underage girls.
5. The president has pushed for his “pet legislation,” The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which would help fund “community health centers” (Planned Parenthood is their prime target). Additionally, the HHS mandate would force all Americans to fund abortion and contraception, with no exceptions for religious institutions or religious individuals who are vehemently against abortion and contraception.

Hence, my worry is not unwarranted.

Yet, as Susan Michele Tyrrell adroitly put it in a post-election commentary, we are called to put our trust in our Lord and not in men.

Though pro-lifers are disappointed, grieved and even angry, we must remember that our call to LIFE and prayer has never changed. This isn’t a time to spew negativity or fight with natural weapons. Never have we needed to pray as we do in this critical hour. No man is our answer apart from Jesus, and He wasn’t the least bit surprised. Before the foundation of the world, He knew we’d re-elect President Obama tonight. We absolutely cannot forget the word of the Lord in Romans which says:

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

And so we continue in faith. We believe that the unborn child has value and deserves to be protected. This cause has permitted us to hold eight 40-day prayer vigils in one of the most liberal area of Montreal if not Canada. Faith spurs us on to defend life at of its stages, from conception until natural death. Faith sustains us as we continue to build via organizing conferences, helping pregnant women, comforting those who have experienced an abortion. We believe that we can change hearts.

Thank you for supporting us on this journey, both spiritually and financially.

Yours in Christ Jesus

Brian Jenkins

Outreach Coordinator

Quebec Life Coalition

Two Saved Babies.

It is with jubilation that I share that two Montreal mothers are carrying through with their pregnancies.

The day before yesterday I received a phone call from Jennifer (pseudoname), a mother of five who shared a story with me about her neighbour. The latter is twenty-two weeks pregnant and ultrasound revealed a fetal deformity - a missing hand. This was confirmed with a second ultrasound. The father was adamant about aborting this "imperfect" child, the mother sadly acquiescing. No conversation, email, from Frances or from another neighbour could dissuade the father. What prevailed eventually to save the life of this unborn was the protective instinct of the mother. She had wished to recover the aborted child and give it a proper burial. Yet as she soon learned aborted bodies are not returned to the parents and the child is dismembered prior to extracting. On hearing the latter, the mother seemed to awake from her slumber and became defensive toward the life budding inside of her. In short, no abortion.

The second saved concerns a foreign national carrying a 19-week old infant. Financial woes and immediate family pressures – parents and grand-mother, to abort wreaked havoc on her. She visited the abortion mill outside of which we are hosting the 40D4L prayer vigil for medical advice and see the infant inside of her. She left more frustrated than anything else and came to speak with us. We directed to various people in our aid network and now mother, father, and child are being accompanied along. Praise God.

Please keep these in your prayers as the wiles of the evil one are never too far off.