News

Last week, a bill establishing a “federal framework for suicide prevention” passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 285 to three. This bill would require that the Canadian government spread greater suicide awareness, make data on suicide and its risk factors available to the public, and promote the use of research studies in treating and preventing suicidal behavior.

My question to you today: if the government of Canada acknowledges that suicide is wrong and must be prevented, how can euthanasia ever be right?

I am glad to hear about Bill C-300, and I hope that greater measures to help people with suicidal tendencies and educate society about suicidal behavior will be underway. Canada is already losing 3,600 lives a year to suicide- we cannot afford to lose more here in Quebec by legalizing euthanasia. I am fusing the discussion of suicide and euthanasia because they are essentially the same thing. Both suicide and euthanasia involve the individual’s “choice”; in both cases, the individual wants to terminate his or her life due to some dire circumstance; and the end result of both actions is the irreversible death of an individual.

Now, I wish to ask a question to euthanasia advocates: At which point, and after how much suffering, should a person be assisted in taking their own life? Furthermore, how do we cut the line between mental and physical suffering? Derek Humphry, author of the book “Final Exit” and promoter of euthanasia, admits the following: “I believe that assisted suicide for the mentally troubled will eventually be available in perhaps 50 years when we know more about the human mind, and when society has a more enlightened view on choices in dying in general.” Yet, Humphry’s statement is contradictory with his own views, for he emphasizes that he refuses to support assisted suicide for the mentally troubled on the grounds that poor mental health can be treated and most people would not be comfortable helping a mentally-ill person kill themselves (for a complete list of Humphry’s 9 arguments against euthanasia for the mentally ill, click here).

Let me stop here and tell you a little anecdote:

The other day, I saw something crazy…there was a couple fighting at a metro station, and at one point the man (who was on the opposite side of the tracks as the woman) went down the stairs to place himself on top of the railway lines. I was in panic when I saw that- my heart started racing at the possibility that a train would come any moment, but my first reaction was to call for help- a security personnel, the police, or someone who would protect this man from killing himself. I realized that if he didn’t move I would have to go get him myself. Thank God this man picked himself up and returned to the platform before the train arrived! I still don’t know what I would have done otherwise.

This reaction resembles the way we should respond to someone who seeks to accelerate his own death, whether assisted by a physician or not. Many of us will one day or another face very difficult situations – at such times, we can be led to believe that our life has no value, that things can only get worse…but if everyone feeling hopeless or depressed is given the “right” to physician-assisted suicide, what will our society turn into? Part of being human means accepting weakness, sadness, and fear as we confront the uncertainty of the future. It is through solidarity with others that we are able to deal with these difficult conditions and gather the strength to face them.

Euthanasia would enable a ‘system’ for eliminating pain- something that sounds good on the surface, but is totally unsustainable in reality. All of us, at some point, will have to face death. We can hope and pray for a peaceful and painless death- but we are not guaranteed that. Now, as we approach death or are made victims of mental or physical disease, it is normal to want to give up- but God wants us to hold on and understand that if he has kept us alive and breathing it is for a good reason. In friendship and communication with others, we can discover that reason for living, that motive to hold on and heal from suffering. I would like you to pause for a moment and think to yourself: what makes a life “meaningful”? What brings us happiness? I am young, but from what I’ve experienced so far, part of the beauty of life comes from persevering amidst difficulty. Some of my greatest moments of joy have been tending my hand to someone right when they need it. When someone thanks you for being there for them in the times they had most difficulty, cherish that moment, for it means you are following in Christ’s footsteps.

Let us all remember that God determines life and death….we do not have the power to create life, and we do not have the permission to cause someone’s death (if only everyone could understand this when it comes to abortion too!) We are living in a society that gradually seeks to eliminate all suffering, pain, and responsibility. Do we want to become part of a society that sees life as a nuisance and burden rather than a gift? I read an interesting article today that shared the following small piece of insight from a book by P.J. O’Rourke:

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is, as the prefix indicates, that we’re in favor of living. We consider people — with a few obvious exceptions — to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, clothe them, pick up the trash after their rallies on the National Mall, and make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

 Euthanasia is unacceptable, most of all because we live in an age where we are constantly making medical advances and discovering new methods to help people with various physical and mental ailments. We learn more about the human mind and body everyday- amidst such progressive scientific development, how can we make the case that human life is not valuable in all circumstances, even the most difficult ones? Let us stay firm and strong in our resolution to refuse the legalization of euthanasia. With the crime of abortion already infiltrating society, our duty to defend life from conception to natural death has become even more important and urgent.

I hope to never see euthanasia legalized in Canada (or elsewhere). Meanwhile, the 40 Days for Life Vigil begins tomorrow- please remember to pray for the end of abortion throughout the Lenten Season in the hopes that Christ will soften the hearts of those promoting the unjust killing of children and other members of society.

The 7th edition of a twice-a-year international prayer vigil for the end of abortion is kicking off this evening at 7pm in Lahaie Park (at the intersection of Saint-Laurent and Saint-Joseph boulevards), across the street from a Montreal abortion clinic.

Along with 257 other cities across the world, this "40 Days for Life" vigil, which will take place at Lahaie Park daily from 7am until 7pm from February 22nd until April 1st, aims to peacefully and prayerfully inform the public at large about the damage abortion has done to society.

Organised in Montreal by the Quebec Life Coalition (QLC), this year's vigil coincides with a new abortion defunding initiative spearheaded by QLC. This initiative will run alongside the 40 Days for Life right up until April 30th, the end of the tax season.

More about the 40 Days for Life >>

I would like to recommend the following website : http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/. In particular, I would like to point out the large-spanning, comprehensive review that Canada Silent No More has put together regarding the mental and physical effects related to legal abortion. The ‘Facts and Stats’ section of the website, at first glance, is daunting and discouraging. However, it is important to note that these discomforting figures represent the truth about the terrible effects abortion can have on women. Given that many people base their decisions on ‘what the research shows’, it is impressive to see that an organization has devoted the time and energy to sift through a massive pile of research studies in order to inform women on various mental and physical effects of abortion.

When it comes to counseling women who are debating an abortion, I believe the best approach is to offer love, support, understanding, and resources (both emotional and financial, whenever possible). Nonetheless, attention also must be drawn to the scientific evidence that warns against abortion. The medical community cannot continue to shun its eye from the negative impacts of abortion. Many pro-choicers claim that pro-lifers are inventing the idea of a “post-abortion syndrome”…but if that’s really the case, why do numerous scientific studies show us otherwise? If the risk of breast cancer doubles after one abortion, and a 1997 government study from Finland showed that “women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term”, shouldn’t women considering abortion be at least notified of these disastrous health consequences?

Let me re-iterate: the abortion debate is fundamentally about the life of the fetus. What we are defending, here at Quebec Life Coalition, is the unborn child’s right to life and protection. In addition to killing the lives of children, abortion also destroys the lives of many women (and men). In sharing the cited studies on http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/, what I seek is to spread greater awareness of the evils of abortion- but the primary wrong of abortion is that it kills a new human life- the fact that it hurts so many women too reveals the aftermath of actions that go against God’s love for all of us.

Dear Pro-Lifer,

If you are anything like me, you are probably rejoicing with each passing day. Not only are we enjoying more daylight but also a stronger sun. Winter's end is near. (Click here for the February Newsletter !)

Could it also be, in the light of recent events, that the end of Canada's abortion winter is near? Is the era of free and unrestricted abortion is ending?

We at the Quebec Life Coalition think so and you can helpmake this happen. More about this in a moment.  

Abortion's Winter Thaw

First, the abortion thaw is underway. During the first week of February, the Honourable Stephen Woodworth, the Member of Parliament for Kitchener Center, Ontario, took a big step at thawing the abortion winter which has blanketed our land since 1968.

It was back in 1968 that Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced legislation that permitted the performance of abortions in hospitals provided a three-doctor panel judged the medical merit of the procedure for the particular woman.

This legislation was challenged in 1988. Dr. Morgentaler argued that to restrict the procedure to hospitals alone was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, the Trudeau legislation was quashed, and ever since no federal law governing the procedure has existed.

Since this decision, the Conservatives have tried to write legislation but to no avail. And so at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason, a woman can have an abortion.

Will the step taken by Conservative member from Ontario be able to achieve legislative distinction?

And so on Monday, February 6, Mr. Woodworth took a step in this direction. His press release begins:

Today MP Stephen Woodworth filed a Motion with the Clerk of the House of Commons to ask Parliament to form a special Committee to study Canada's 400 year old definition of human being and report back to the House on the medical evidence it finds and on options to deal with this archaic law.

The 400 year old definition states that a child is a human being only at the moment of complete birth.

Yet, medical science, observes Mr. Woodworth, has progressed since this seventeenth century legislation on which Canadian law is based. A revision is due.

And not only a revision but also an evaluation of its implications, guided by the following questions:

1. What medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?
2. Is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?
3. What are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?
4. What are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?  

Income Tax Defund Plan

Also, we at the Quebec Life Coalition have found a way to contribute to this thaw, with a little help from you.

Included herewith, you will find a form to be filled and included with your provincial income tax statement. It is addressed to the minister of Finance requesting that your tax monies targeted for provincially funded abortions be refunded to you.

• As we believe that the purpose of healthcare is helping individuals in our society with their sicknesses; and
• Whereas pregnancy is not an illness; then
• We conclude that abortions do not fall under the coverage of the ministry of Health.

So, we encourage you to fill in the form below and to submit it along with your tax return.

Along with the initiative of Mr. Woodworth, you will be contributing to ending abortion's winter reign.

Many thanks for your continued support,

Brian Jenkins

Coordinator for English and Multicultural Community Outreach

Quebec Life Coalition

As a special offer and to commemorate the "40 Days for Life" prayer vigil – from Wednesday, February 22, to Sunday, April 1, 2012, both new donors and regulars who respond to this month's appeal will receive a complimentary "40 Days for Life" t-shirt.

The idea that contraception lowers abortion rates seems like a nice idea for Liberal leaders...but it doesn't seem to map out that way in reality. According to the recent New York Times article "The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion" by Ross Douthat, liberal states do not do better than conservative states in preventing teenage pregnancy. On the contrary, abortion rates are frequently higher in liberal states than conservatives states (the author cites that in New-York, two in five pregnancies end in abortion). 

Is it worthwhile to rethink social policy? Most people agree that they would like to see abortion rates go down...so, what is the best approach? I recommend this article- though it isn't big on statistics, it is published in a popular left-winged newspaper and nonetheless makes the case that maybe conservatives who advocate a return to family values, marriage, and chastity are not as "crazy" as many think. Finally, if lack of access to contraceptives is not the main reason for the number of children aborted every year, shouldn't we be thinking whether the current model of sex and pregnancy is to blame (not to mention the flawed view of the human dignity of the unborn child)? 

...On the National Affairs show on CTV. You can watch the video here.

How do we live a life of freedom, self-giving, and love? How is it possible to grow from self-centeredness to self-sacrifice? For any of you interested in discovering the answers to these questions, I recommend Christopher West's upcoming presentation. Christopher West will be coming to Montréal from May 18th to May 21st, 2012 (open to all young people age 18-35).

I attended a Christopher West talk last year and found it particularly compelling and insightful. In defending life from conception to natural death, we need to have a solid understanding of what it means to be free and to make choices.

God has given us all the great gift of freedom, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 6:12 (NIV), "Everything is permissible for me - but not everything is beneficial."

I hope this speech by Christopher West will enlighten all young people seeking to discover the path to freedom and love. Don't forget to register before March 1st! 

To all those of you who honestly believed (or were shocked) by the Guttmacher Institute’s finding that « 98% of Catholic women use contraception », rest assured, this research does not fall into the category of reliable scientific research. Let’s take a look at several of the problems with their inclusion and exclusion criteria…

The survey was limited to women who are: 

(a) between 15 and 44. The White House and the Guttmacher Institute both assert that 98% of “Catholic women” “have used” contraception. But the data are restricted to the subset of women aged between 15 and 44. It tells us nothing about the views of women between 45 and 100. Is the White House implying that they do not count?

(b) sexually active. Why aren’t women who are not sexually active included? Presumably a proportion of Catholic women are single by choice and are observing the Church’s teaching. Don’t they count?

(c) not pregnant or post-partum. According to the report, “14% of married women are pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant”. We aren’t informed what proportion of women are married, but it probably shaves a few percentage points off the 98%.

(d) seeking to avoid becoming pregnant. This is where the survey figures disappear beyond the looking-glass. It was restricted to sexually-active women, married and unmarried, who were seeking to avoid becoming pregnant. Thus all unmarried Catholic women who were not sexually active (there must be some of them) and all married Catholic women who wanted to become pregnant (ditto) were excluded. 

Using such restricted, biased inclusion criteria means the results of this study are not representative of the whole population of Catholic women. Please don’t be fooled…any study can be skewed by poor research practice. Thanks for sharing! 

Within the constructs of our secular society, there are those very rare days when we feel inclined to celebrate a saint of the Catholic Church (Saint Valentine’s Day, Saint Patrick’s Day). Sadly, these important events have turned into a commercialized, “let’s-get-drunk and have a party” occasions…the lives of the saints are forgotten, ignored, or worse, not known.

Don’t you find it odd that all of us look forward (at least a little bit) to Saint Valentine’s Day, and yet so few of us actually know the story of Saint Valentine’s life? What is it we are celebrating, and why? 

Historical records show that there may have been three different men known as Valentine, however it is likely that two of these were really the same man (St. Valentine). St. Valentine is known as the patron saint of love, young people, and happy marriages. Below is his story:

Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce his faith ineffectual, commanded him to be beaten with clubs, and afterwards, to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270. Pope Julius I is said to have built a church near Ponte Mole to his memory, which for a long time gave name to the gate now called Porta del Popolo, formerly, Porta Valetini. The greatest part of his relics are now in the church of St. Praxedes.

It is also believed that while he was imprisoned, Saint Valentine performed a miraculous healing and restored the sight of his jailer’s blind daughter. Though the details of Valentine’s life remain incomplete, I find that we can draw great wisdom from his life in relation to the Pro-Life cause. First of all, it is important to remember that Valentine was imprisoned, beaten, and executed in the name of his faith. As a worker in the pro-life field, one can be a victim of great animosity and hostility. I hope we can draw strength from Saint Valentine and all the other saints who laid down their lives for the Lord, keeping in mind the precept, “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Secondly, on this feast of Saint Valentine, let us not forget the he is the patron saint of love and married couples. Bringing an end to abortion requires that society develop an awareness and great respect for the Sacrament of Marriage. Without the institution of family, society will collapse. There is a proper order that is preserved through marriage, and in it we find development, joy, peace, and prosperity. On this day let us all make a prayer to Saint Valentine, that married couples may continuously find strength in Christ, that those discerning marriage be led along the right path, and that those who have suffered divorce, broken relationships, or marital abuse may find the courage to rise up again and believe in the power of Christ’s redemptive love. Enjoy the feast of Saint Valentine’s, and please share his beautiful story!

After reading a letter submitted by a woman who had an abortion on LifeSiteNews.com, I could not help but think to myself, how many other women have a similar story to share? How many other women have come through the deep end and struggle to live in peace after a decision that tore their lives (and that of their child)?

I wish the platform for post-abortive issues were more open to public conversation. I feel that interaction with women who themselves made the ‘choice’ of aborting would help prevent struggling women from making the same devastating decision. Unfortunately, as it stands, the crime of abortion is only spoken of using so-called “politically-correct” (and morally fraudulent!) jargon: “freedom of choice”, “women’s rights” (and what about children’s rights?), “my body, my choice”...but how many women, men, and families have suffered from the killing of their unborn child?

Notice I say men and women- because yes, men are also hurt by the horrors of abortion, for when they conceive a new being with a woman, they willingly partake in God’s act of life- and when they neglect the existence of that tiny being and fail to support the woman they have physically committed to, they also suffer the guilt, frustration, and sadness that follows. 

A recent meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry revealed that women having abortions experience an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. If anyone is wondering why Post-Abortion Syndrome is not spoken of or acknowledged by the medical community, one must also wonder what political motivations exist to hide the truth on the physical and psychological impacts of abortion.

A final point of interest: If the whole abortion industry really has in mind the best interest of women, why don’t they perform a regular post-abortive check-up to ensure that women are really free of mental and physical agony post-abortion? As far as emotional reactions are concerned, the The Montreal Morgentaler facility website simply states that if psychological persists after one week or so, you may need a referral for “post-abortion counselling”- so really, do they honestly believe that women resume life normally after aborting their child?