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!

Over the past few days a couple of articles have appeared stirring on Parliament Hill the embers of the abortion debate. These are:

1. On Tuesday the following story care out: "Canadian MP calls for debate in Parliament". Click here to read more about the views of Jeff Watson member of parliament for Essex, on this topic.
2. Also on Tuesday, we find the similar view in "Evangelical leaders call on Canadian Parliament to open abortion debate."

In addition to these are two others that treat the issue in Prince Edward Island.

1. "P.E.I. pro-life group kicks off 'show the truth' campaign" discusses the work that pro-lifers are doing to address misinformation on the topic.
2. And finally, a CBC report on the same topic is available here.

This is the third in a series examing the logical fallacies pro-choicers make when justifying their position. The previous two were:

1. Abortion frees a child from having to live in an abusive environment; and
2. "I'm opposed to abortion, but respect the woman's righ to choose."

A third justification is:

3. It is unfair to have a woman carry to term a child conceived as the result of a rape or incest.

This subject is the topic of a current news story. The latter profiles two rape victims - one advocating for the woman's right to choose while the second is pro-life. Yet there is an important difference in the two for the latter, unlike the first, conceived a child as a result of the rape.

Also, since the story appeared this past Friday, November 18, a string of thought-out comments on both sides of the issue have been posted. For example, Kris, an alias we learn, argues that she aborted following her rape because of the lack of support system available to her. Further she argues that it is unfair that to hold women to keep the child for the full term. 

Her comments are met by several writers who posit strong counter-arguments. "Beckwith24" and "Veritas" move the dialog away from the wishes of the mom to the violence done on the unborn. "DanielJ" brings up the topic of adoption, which meshes well with the lead story as this is what the second rape victim did and is glad for having done so.

The topic of adoption figures centrally in a study done by the Elliot Institute. In one of their publications - "Victims and Victors," it reports upon 192 woman who conceived following a rape or incest, 69% carried the child to term and 80% of these are happy for having done so.

Of those who aborted, nearly 80% reported that it was not the right solution and only increase the trauma they were experiencing.

Read more about the Elliot Institute's reseach here.

This past Tuesday evening - October 25, television host Michael Coran interviewed breast surgical oncologist Dr. Angela Lanfranchi on his show The Arena. Listen to the interview here to learn about "the biological and epidemiological evidence for the link between abortion and breast cancer."

Two things the Georgetown medical grad said were quite swaying. First, of 64 scientific studies, 53 show a positive link between abortion and breast cancer and of these, 25 are statisticaly significant. 

Second, medical facts - i.e., undisputed data in the medical field, note that for each year that a woman delays a full-term pregnancy after either an induced or spontaneous abortion, her risk of getting breast cancer increases - 5% for pre-menopausal cancer and 3% for post-menopausal cancer.

Lastly, an european actuarial study concluded that the greatest predictor of breast cancer in a country is its abortion registry.

Again, view the interview here.

This video is a bit lengthy but well worth the time spent viewing.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7y2KsU_dhwI