By Georges Buscemi, president of Quebec Life Coalition
Translated by Quebec Life Coalition staff.

On April 26, a column by Elsie Lefebvre (former Parti Québécois MP and Montreal city councillor) appeared on the Journal de Montréal website, discussing an announcement by Martine Biron, Minister responsible for the Status of Women, that she would soon be launching a "consultation" to ensure that the "right to abortion" becomes enshrined in Quebec law. The title of the article: Abortion rights threatened, even here in Quebec.

Lefebvre reviews the more or less well-founded reasons for believing that the "right" to abortion is threatened in Quebec and Canada: "Trumpist" Pierre Poilièvre and pro-life MPs "emanating from the conservative religious right", as well as "pro-life volunteers who are slowly but surely weaving their web" and other boogeyman who “give her goosebumps”, are, according to Lefebvre, working together to weaken access to abortion.

We won't dwell on the hysterical aspect of the analysis (Trump! Pro-lifers weave their web! etc.). What is most annoying is the underhanded manipulation of the reader's mind by claiming, through a headline such as "Abortion Rights Threatened," that the assertion that abortion is a "right" is so obvious that it does not even need to be defended. But the opposite is true: it is obvious that abortion is not a right, that such a "right" cannot exist, and that if there exists today in Western societies permission to abort, or tolerance of the crime of abortion, it is because we have no respect for the right to life of the unborn class of humans. Moreover, if the current state of affairs is now threatened, that is very good news, because not only is abortion not a right, it is a blatant example of a human rights violation. But to understand this, we must first know what a "right" is.

Definition of "human rights"

Human rights are, according to Wikipedia (I'm quoting a source that is certainly not to the advantage of pro-lifers), "a philosophical, legal, and political concept, according to which every human being possesses universal, inalienable rights, regardless of positive law (existing law) or other local factors such as ethnicity, nationality, or religion." Basically, certain things are due to the innocent human person, such as life, speech, the right to associate, and this, regardless of one’s origin, size, beliefs. These rights can only be taken away or limited for serious reasons, such as in the case of a murderer who must be incarcerated for the protection of other citizens. This concept of human rights is incompatible, again according to Wikipedia, "with the idea that building a better society justifies the elimination or oppression of those who are supposed to stand in the way of the realization of that better society."

And this is the simple reason why abortion is a violation of human rights: in order to build a better world for one class of people — women — pro-abortionists claim that it is legitimate to sacrifice the lives of members of another class of people, the unborn. This goes against the very concept of an innate human right, a right that is possessed by virtue of man's humanity and has not been conferred upon him by a state or other human power. We do not have the right to kill the unborn, period, even if that killing might —in the view of the perpetrator, of course, and not the victim — seem to make our society "progress".

Now, here a pro-abortionist might try to take refuge in the nonsensical argument that the embryo is not "human" or "a person". I say "nonsensical" because there are only a few months and a little water and food between the embryo and the newborn baby it will become. Do we dare to claim that adding a little water to an embryo would have changed its nature, transformed it from the simple animal that it was, into a human being? Or worse: would an unborn child become human only after it has completely left the womb, as our delusional Canadian Criminal Code claims, as if the birth canal were endowed with magical powers that could transform a "cluster of cells" into a baby with human rights? The unborn child is therefore obviously a human being, from the moment of conception, regardless of the pro-abortionists who look for a pretext to eliminate it when it is advantageous to them.

Finally, and this is the sad reality, I believe that many pro-abortionists, if they claim to promote "human rights", do not really believe in them. Many of them have a purely material view of existence: all humans, not just babies, are just "clumps of cells" or piles of matter. Rights have no hold on heaps of matter, but only on human beings, endowed with immortal souls created directly by God. Basically, without a conception of the divine and the spiritual, everything becomes matter to be owned or thrown away, and human rights evaporate. All that remains is the will of the strongest at the expense of the weakest, which we see today manifested in many ways. It is up to us, believers in a God who created us and conferred rights and duties on us, to preserve this idea of human rights, even if many of our fellow citizens betray this ideal while praising it.

Augustin Hamilton’s Blog (Quebec Life Coalition)

Yesterday, February 16, 2023, Le Journal de Montréal published an article written by Héloïse Archambault, with the collaboration of Frédérique Giguère, reporting that a hospital felt "compelled to call the police because of aggressive anti-choice activists", essentially confirming that the baby, whom we have nicknamed "Daniel", had indeed been aborted.

This confirms, if it were necessary, that when we announced "Baby Daniel’s" forthcoming late abortion we were not spreading false news, whatever some people may think...

To take the case back to its beginning, before addressing Archambault's article, let's first look at the chronology of events as we have learned it.

On the morning of February 1, 2023, a whistleblower contacted a pro-life organization other than ours, via social networks, to communicate her dismay. She was aware of an exceptional medical staff meeting at Montreal’s Sacré-Coeur Hospital on how to perform an abortion at 38 weeks of pregnancy the next morning.

See: Pro-life organization and Montreal doctor call for challenge to abortion status quo following reports of lethal injection of unborn child at 38 weeks of pregnancy

Faced with the revelation that this barbaric, disgusting act would take place at 38 weeks, we sent an email to our subscribers the same day, asking them to pray that the abortion would not take place, that a baby would be saved.

Later that day, a pro-life Montrealer, Marie-Josée Rivest, contacted us: she had called Sacré-Coeur Hospital and an employee of the institution had confirmed to her that this late-term abortion was really going to take place the next day. Note also that about 100 people responded to our email, but other than Mrs. Rivest, no one informed us as to whether they had contacted the hospital in any way.

The following day, February 2, 2023, our first source informed us that the abortion had taken place as planned.

At noon on Friday, February 10, 2023, Quebec Life Coalition held a press conference at the corner of Fréchette Street and Gouin Boulevard West, not far from Sacré-Coeur Hospital. Note that the rally took place more than 50 meters from the hospital, in order to comply with the exclusion zone imposed by law 92 around places performing abortions.

Click here to view the press conference.

The launch of Coeurage & Laura Albo at her conference at St.Ignatius of Loyola Parish -- Photos :Joanne Of Arc

By Joanne of Arc for Quebec Life Coalition

''Coeurage'' is a lay "reproductive loss grief care" and support program for those who have lost a young child to abortion, miscarriage or death, which was launched by Laura Albo on Nov. 24 at St. Ignatius of Loyola Parish.

“I went through reproductive losses, abortion & miscarriages. I was once feeling hopeless & not in the best state of my life. I think that I didn’t grieve as I should have grieved, and this messed with my way of life and relationships. I think that every woman who is out there and who may be feeling this kind of hopelessness or who is in that state, they should know that there is a chance to recover from that. So that is why I am here” said Laura when asked by QLC about her motivation for starting her ministry.

When speaking about the name of her ministry Laura explained “Coeurage is not misspelled. I believe you are never too old to bring your heart back together” [In French, the name Coeurage is a word play for heart & courage].

Laura Albo is the coordinator of ''BRAVE'', the Grief and Loss support programs offered at Options pregnancy center. Amongst these Coeurage is her own program, which she has been working on since, before the pandemic, when she was a volunteer at QLC along with the president of the organization, Georges Buscemi.

Prior to her current occupation, Laura was a teacher and has been teaching for 11 years in Mexico. She has taught at every level from daycare to university. Furthermore, as presented on her webpage, she has a Masters degree in Special Education, Psychopedagogical Intervention in Educational Contexts and Intervention in Learning Disabilities, as well as a Masters degree in Neuropsychology and Education.

Laura has been working for a long time with people who lost one or more children prior to launching Coeurage and this cause has been close to her heart because she personally had an abortion and two miscarriages. This post-abortion program has been years in the making (since 2018). Today, her goal is to make sure women or anyone who went through an abortion experience have a safe space to talk about and heal through their grief to find hope again after this great loss.

By Joanne of Arc for Quebec Life Coalition - Photo: Joanne of Arc

This fall, hundreds of communities across North America and several Canadian cities simultaneously organized a 40 Days for Life campaign from September 28 to November 6, 2022.

The 40 Days for Life is a focused pro-life effort that consists of:

• 40 days of prayer and fasting to end abortion
• 40 days of peaceful vigil
• 40 days of community awareness

I was present in Sherbrooke on the 31st day to report on this event. Brian Jenkins, who is the leader of the team, was on place to give me a warm welcome. This man spends 12 hours a day outside, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the 40 days, as an advocate for life. He takes a break at noon, during which Mr. Gerard replaces him, for the entire length of the 40-day vigil. The vigil participants vary from day to day, but Brian and Gerard are present daily.

By law, Brian and the other participants must not be within 50 meters of a facility where abortions take place, in this case the CLSC Belvédère (Local Community Services Center). So far, there have been no counter-demonstrators, whereas last year a pro-choice group of 100 people gathered against 3-4 people who were doing the vigil. Gerard shares with me that the Sherbrooke police supported the vigil participants last year, and since then they have been supported by the Sherbrooke authorities. Brian has a working relationship with the police of Sherbrooke and can count on them for their help to maintain their safety.

CLSC Belvédère in Sherbrooke - Photo: Joanne of Arc

In 2001, drug trials for the abortion inducing drug RU-486 was halted after protests and the death of a woman from septic shock.

Renewed efforts to make this drug available in Canada began this past November. At this time, the Canadian Medical Association Journal featured an article critical of the lack of surgical abortion facilities in rural Canada, a slight that can be alleviated via chemical abortions such as RU-486.

Then Society of Family Planning chimed in, announcing that based on a 2012 survey, increasing availability to chemical abortions would save women from travelling and from undergoing surgical abortions, and would increase accessibility to abortion services.

Yesterday, the Journal de Montréal, in two separate features, sung a similar tune. Isabelle Maher and Lise Ravary argued separately that since this abortifacient is available in well over 60 countries, why then is it not available in Canada?

What these articles fail to note is the harm that RU-486 has had on women. According to the Campaign Life Coalition, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) reports that there have been 14 deaths associated with this drug. Further, the FDA notes that there have been 2000 cases of adverse side effects including hospitalization, significant blood loss, severe infection and blood transfusions.

Corroborating much of this information about RU-486 is a fact sheet published by the group Real Choices Australia. Based on a Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists study, the fact sheet notes the extent of excessive bleeding, the pain, and other adverse effects after using this abortifacient.

Let's pray that Health Canada does not give in to this new wave of pressure, but rather contributes to ensuring the health integrity of women.

p.s. See a couple of recent stories on this topic. First, the National Post published a letter by Mike Schouten entitled "Another skipped abortion debate." Also, the CBC reports that Health Canada will delay its decision until the Fall 2015 as additional information is sought from the manufacturer - "Abortion drug decision pushed back by Health Canada."

Close to a hundred abortion mills dot our country a mari usque ad mare.

A National Post story reveals that about half of these are located in Quebec (46) because governmental so-called "health policies" included expansion into the rural areas as early as the 1970s.

As for the other regions of Canada, in descending order of quantity, we have British Columbia with 16, Ontario 16, the prairie provinces 8, and the Atlantic provinces 4. I suppose the balance of the 94 cited in the article are found in the three territories.

Also, a revealing graphic accompanying the story shows that there is not an insignificant number of late term abortions. Often scoff by pro-abortion advocates met on the streets of Montreal as minuscule, the graphic indicates close to two thousand unborn children are aborted after 21 weeks of gestation every year in Canada.

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

Austin Ruse, President at C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute) sends us the following message about Melinda Gates and those with whom she associates - i.e., population controllers.

Have a read and, if you are in agreement, follow through and sign the open letter.

I did; # 8071 who had done so.

June 21, 2012

Dear Friend,

In just a few weeks billionaire Melinda Gates is hosting a Family Planning Summit in London. She is doing this with the largest abortion providers and promoters in the world, the UN Population Fund and International Planned Parenthood Federation.

They say they want to raise $4 billion to promote contraception among poor women. This is population control plain and simple, population control aimed at poor dark-skinned women.

We have tried to get pro-lifers registered for this summit so there can be a counter voice…

BUT WE ARE BEING SHUT OUT BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Even though our voices will be shut out, we will not be silenced.

I ask you to read the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES and if you agree that this is a dangerous conference and if you agree that pro-lifers should not be shut out, sign the letter!

We hope to gather 100,000 signatures from all over the world and we will hand deliver them to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation headquarters in Seattle, Washington and/or directly on the steps of the Family Planning Summit in London on July 11th!

BUT WE HAVE ONLY TWO WEEKS TO DO IT. PLEASE ACT NOW!

Please read the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES, sign it, and then send this email to everyone in your address book. The only way this will be effective is if this email and this petition go viral all over the Internet.

So, help us say NO to Melinda Gates. No abortion. No abortion groups. No coerced family planning.

Sign the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES and send this email to all of your family and friends, TO YOUR ENTIRE ADDRESS BOOK.

We will deliver all signatures to Melinda Gates office in three weeks!

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse, President, C-FAM New York/Washington DC

PS We have only two weeks to get this done. Please act fast, act now, sign this letter and send this email to everyone you know!

Sued for "defamation" in late 2010 by "pro-choice" Quebec priest Father Raymond Gravel, pro-life group Campagne Québec-Vie (aka Quebec Life Coalition) has recently submitted its written defense at the Superior Court in Joliette Quebec, where Father Gravel is incardinated.

"We refuse to compromise our principles. It's our duty to defend human dignity, however that may irk Father Gravel" states Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie (CQV). The Joliette priest accuses CQV of having damaged his "dignity, honour and reputation." The popular priest is claiming $500,000 in damages.

CQV, via its president, is calling on all Quebecers and Canadians at large who value human life from conception until natural death, as well as freedom to speak the truth about life and family, to contribute to its defense fund. Buscemi remarks that many people have been "let down" by the priest thoughout the many years he has been in the French media spotlight. "We're calling on all those people who have written to us to share how scandalized they were by Raymond Gravel to send us a donation so that we can fight this lawsuit on their behalf, but especially on behalf of the unborn and the vulnerable targeted for euthanasia." 

The following (French language) documents are publicly available: 

Father Raymond Gravel's original lawsuit (explaining why he's suing Campagne Québec-Vie / Quebec Life Coalition)

Campagne Québec-Vie's written defense, as submitted to the Quebec Superior Court in Joliette, QC. 

An executive summary of the defense of LifeSiteNews, which is also named in the original lawsuit (in English). 

Quebec Life Coalition thanks everyone who can donate whatever amount to its defense fund and help stop Gravel from intimidating pro-life groups in Quebec. For Life and Family !

Yesterday, Maryland became the eighth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, who signed the bill, announced that "We are all one Maryland, and all of us at the end of the day want the same thing for our children." 

First of all, Governor O’Malley’s statement is not true, because we do not all want the same thing for our children. People of good will, generally-speaking, want what is best for their children…but some people deem it acceptable to kill their children in the womb (hello abortion) or even to euthanize their newborn baby after birth (see this previously posted article).

Secondly…how ironic that Governor O’Malley brings up the topic of children at a gay-marriage bill-signing celebration! The reality is, homosexuals cannot conceive. Abortion kills unwanted babies, while homosexuality eliminates the possibility of babies altogether.

Many may reply to this statement with the question, “Well, who cares anyways? Marriage shouldn’t just be about procreation.”

Well, there’s some truth to that…but nonetheless, marriage is mainly about procreation. Why? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman recognized by the state, whose children will be recognized by the state too (and for those of us who are religious, marriage is seen as a sacrament, blessed by the hands of God…but we’ll leave that topic for another day).

This is what my argument boils down to: Homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive a child. Their partnership is void of fertility. Then why are homosexuals so insistent on legalizing gay marriage? What benefits are they looking for in marriage?

Adam Kolasinski wrote an article presenting the secular case against gay marriage. He writes:

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Did you read that last sentence? It expresses the fact that marriage between homosexual couples is costly to the state and society. Over the past decades, we have seen the breakdown of the link between marriage and procreation in heterosexual relationships. The problem with homosexual marriage is that it will further widen the gap between marriage and children, leading to deeper societal issues.

It is my belief that dissociating marriage from the act of procreation builds an egocentric, selfish mentality of marital relationships. If marriage does not exist for the institution of family and building future generations, then why does it exist at all? Divorce, abuse, and declining birthrates all have negative impacts on economic and social development. Homosexual marriages will likely add to this confusion.

From the point of view of the child’s wellbeing, it has been shown that “children need both a male and female parent for proper development.” In other words, adoption or surrogate mothers would not be the way to go for homosexual couples because children develop better when they grow up with a biological mother and father.

Think about it: How many of you would be happy having had two mothers or two fathers instead of a mother and a father? I reckon most can testify that having a father and a mother provides the appropriate balance for a family. However, I want to emphasize that I do not think homosexuals are bad parents – rather, they simply cannot offer a parent unit that includes both a biological mother and father.

Finally, let us not forget that homosexual marriage could infringe upon our religious rights in much the same way as the current HHS mandate on contraception in the United States has. Here in Québec, the ERC course has wrought an atmosphere of moral relativism and religious indifference. Presenting homosexuality as a ‘personal choice’ and ethically neutral arrangement clashes with fundamental Christian teaching; it also prevents parents from overseeing their own children’s education. The state could take it a step even further and maybe, one day, force churches to offer homosexual marriage. Though this statement sounds outlandish, it is possible.

Currently it seems there are ten countries that have legalized same-sex marriage (Canada included). Please spread awareness of the dangers of homosexual marriage on the institute of family, child-rearing, religious freedom, and social stability. Help us build a culture of life!