The "Balancing the Abortion Debate" Blog
Welcome to the Blog. Posts
will be added as time permits. If you have any comments, please e-mail
them in at the address at the bottom of every page.
Thanks.
Craig.
|
This letter is in response to the post below dated September 12, 2011: " Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge."
September 28, 2011
Open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Re: The Slide Towards Legal Infanticide in Canada on Your Watch!
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Dear Mr Harper
I am writing to you about the Sept 9th judgment by Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concerning Katrina Effert. As you well know, Veit let this woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada's absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians sympathize with the mother. When someone in Canada murders a fellow citizen and goes free, then this country becomes an embarrassment on the world scene. And Mr Harper, this is happening on your watch!
This judgment looks like the foot in the door towards eventually legalizing infanticide. I realize that it is not easy for you and your government to prevent landmark decisions being made by the courts. But their decisions are often far more influential on the direction in which our country goes than government decisions, and this should not be so from an unelected body.
On a related point, I am not an orthodox religious person, but I strongly believe in God, and I believe that a country that tolerates the killing of its offspring, whether in or out of the womb, will eventually suffer Divine retribution (a.k.a. karma). Those court judges, politicians and citizens who demonstrate a lack of reverence for life are putting our future in jeopardy. And those who do not agree with them but who are silent on the subject are also accountable to some degree, as silence is consent.
Mr Prime Minister, something significant needs to be done. You have been a strong leader up until now, although I think your focus and our tax dollars need to stay more at home in Canada. Judges need to be held accountable to the electorate, and past judgments that have been detrimental to this country and to life need to be reversed. This may not be easy, but it is necessary. Where there is a will, there is a way. I believe that you and your government are in a unique position to make this happen. You are up to the task and I am counting on you to do what is right and what is best for Canadians.
Yours truly,
Craig Nicholson
Author of "Balancing the Abortion Debate" website.
|
September 12, 2011
Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge.
by Patrick B. Craine
EDMONTON, Alberta, September 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada's absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians "sympathize" with the mother.
"We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court," said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.
Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents' downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.
She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.
On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.
According to Justice Veit, Canada's lack of an abortion law indicates that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support." .....
Full story at http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-no-jail-time-for-infanticide-because-canada-accepts-abortion
|
| February 28, 2011
From the Washington Times today:
Defunding Planned Parenthood: A cultural debate
"OHATCHEE, Al., February 28, 2011 - Planned Parenthood, which currently receives more than $360 million from taxpayers each year, is targeted for defunding after an amendment introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) was passed in the House of Representatives. The defunding attempt comes in the wake of more undercover reporting revelations from Live Action, a pro-life organization founded by Lila Rose when she was a student at UCLA. Over time, Planned Parenthood employees across the country have been caught covering up statutory rape and underage prostitution rings, giving out misleading medical and scientific information, and advising potential STD carriers to donate blood as a cheap way to get tested." (Full story at http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/feb/28/defunding-planned-parenthood-abortion-vday-women/ )
January 8, 2011
The Landmark New Book, "UNPLANNED", Intensifies the Abortion Debate
Abby Johnson -- former Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life advocate, will host a webcast event on Monday, January 10 at 9 PM Eastern about her landmark new book "UNPLANNED", which will be released on January 11. On the webcast's website at http://www.UnplannedWebcast.com, it says: "WARNING: Planned Parenthood tried to file a restraining order to prevent YOU from discovering this information." The abortion debate is heating up once again!
|
| September 13, 2010
FDA approves abortion pill, ignores reality.
The following is an extract from a OneNewsNow.com report by Charlie Butts - 9/12/2010:
In a way, ellaOne acts like the abortion drug RU-486, he explains. But the pharmacist goes on to point out that the newly approved drug has not been fully researched, so the long-term effects or the wreckage that could occur for a woman or girl who uses it repeatedly are unknown.
He further feels the FDA's decision does not take into consideration the pharmacists and doctors who have a pro-life view and want nothing to do with the drugs, so Koelzer notes that those individuals will have to stand up and be counted.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1161744
|
| May 13, 2010
Blood Money - the movie:
Coming Soon.
This aught to liven-up the abortion debate! This is what they are saying about the movie at www.bloodmoneyfilm.com:
"BloodMoney
is a documentary film
that exposes the truth behind the Abortion Industry from the Pro Life
perspective.
This film will examine the history of abortion in America, from the
inception of Planned Parenthood and the profitability of abortion
clinics, to Roe v. Wade, to the denial of when life begins, to the
fight to save the lives of innocent babies, and the devastating effects
it has had on the women that have had them. "
|
December 8, 2009
The Debate About Amendments to the U.S. Health
Care Reform Plan Continues
On
Dec. 4, 2009, TODD SPANGLER of the FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF wrote:
The
National Abortion Rights Action League is running a TV ad targeting
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan for his amendment restricting
abortion coverage under the health care reform plan being debated in
Congress.
In
the ad, a narrator asks the rhetorical question, "Why would politicians
like Bart Stupak introduce abortion into America's health care debate?
Why? Are they trying to make it more difficult than ever before for
women to buy insurance coverage for abortion in the new health care
system, even if they use their own money?" The narrator then says the
amendment would "impose one of the worst restrictions on a woman's
right to choose in a generation."
Stupak's
amendment says no insurance plan receiving federal subsidies under the
health care reform bill can provide abortion coverage, unless they do
so on an entirely separate policy paid for in full by the policyholder.
Stupak and his allies argue that maintains an existing restriction on
using federal funds to pay for any kind of abortion coverage.
|
| July 25, 2009
What will the effect of
the proposed U.S. health care reform bill be on abortion?
See the
article below for more details on this subject. It was sent out by the
StopTheAbortionMandate.com website. This is obviously the pro-life side
of it. The pro-choice angle on this proposed bill will obviously be
different:
"From: StopTheAbortionMandate.com
Subject: Replay & URGENT action needed today!
Received: Friday, July 24, 2009, 4:23 PM
Last night,
36,187 pro-life Americans united in an
unprecedented fashion for the "Stop the Abortion
Mandate" webcast event -- and the timing could not
have been better.
News is
breaking in Washington that the House of
Representatives WILL be voting before August recess
on the health care reform bill that would:
* Result in
the biggest expansion of abortion since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court
decision...
* Force YOU
to pay for abortions through your tax dollars -- something 71% of
Americans oppose...
* Implement a
cornerstone of FOCA -- the Freedom of Choice Act -- that would lead to
a massive, taxpayer-subsidized abortion industry bailout...
* Force you
and virtually all Americans into health plans with mandatory abortion
coverage (health care reform legislation must explicitly exclude
abortion in writing or else abortion automatically becomes a minimum
required benefit.)
It is very
important that you -- and record numbers
of people -- do 2 things RIGHT NOW:
1. E-MAIL
your Representative and 2 Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms:
"Keep abortion out of health care! Any health care reform bill must
include language that explicitly excludes abortion." It's easy to do --
just go to: http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com/email
2. CALL the
Washington office and the local office of your Representative and 2
Senators to say: "Keep abortion out of health care. I urge you to
oppose any health care bill unless abortion is explicitly excluded."
Get tips and look up your elected officials at:
http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com/call
If each of us
does these two things today -- and
encourages others to do these things -- we can
make a powerful impact at a crucial moment.
After you've sent your e-mails and made your calls,
be sure to listen to the entire recorded replay of
last night's webcast at:
http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com"
[End of excerpt.]
Even though
some of this may be a bit exaggerated, there is still much more to this
new Bill than meets the eye, and there is something devious about it.
|
February 4, 2009
Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?
I
came across something interesting in
a macrobiotic health book, Healing Ourselves by Noboru
Muramoto.
(Macrobiotics is the name given to the holistic diet and lifestyle
based on Yin
and Yang balance, originating in the ancient Orient. See www.wholesomebalance.com/Macrobiotics.html for
more details.) It says: "Abortions are a possible cause of breast
cancer. Even
though a woman has had an abortion, the pregnancy process
continues. The body
started to prepare to produce milk and was stopped abruptly from doing
so."
I was sure there would
be some debate about that, so I did some research, and sure
enough, there have
been a lot of studies done, and some say it's true and others say
it's not. At www.abortionbreastcancer.com they say,
among other things: "As of
2006, eight
medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for
breast
cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first
child
..."
On
the other hand, the New York times
reported on April 24, 2007:
"There is no association
between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer, scientists
reported
yesterday in a large study. ... This study, published in The Archives
of
Internal Medicine, tracked women prospectively to see if those who
reported
having abortions were more likely to develop breast cancer in the
future. They
were not."
For
a list of the research on the
subject, for and against, see: www.a-zbreastcancer.com/articles/aabortion2.htm. As you can see the experts are evenly divided
on the subject. The
question is: How accurate are
any of these studies, and are they influenced by the personal views of
the
researchers?
The bioethics journal, Ethics and Medics, published
a hard-hitting editorial in its December 2004 issue accusing the
British journal
Lancet and the scientific community of corrupting scientific research
examining
the abortion-breast cancer link. The editorial, "The corruption of
science by
ideology," was authored by Edward J. Furton, M.A., Ph.D. In it, he
says:
"... In fact, the majority of the scientific
studies that have examined the possible connection between abortion and
breast
cancer have shown a definite link. ... The
published study in the Lancet, purportedly one of the most definitive
“meta-analyses” yet carried out, was seriously flawed. Specifically, it
omitted
many studies that showed a link between abortion and breast cancer
... Would it be cynical to think that the
issue
that causes this unwillingness to confront the facts squarely is
abortion? There
is no topic that is more divisive or that carries with it more
ideological
freight.
...The unwillingness of
scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being
advanced by
those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious
breach. The
lives and health of millions of women are put at risk."
So
who do you believe? That is a
personal matter. I believe that on a higher level, we are all one and
that we all have a connection to
the real truth, whether
you call it God or otherwise. It is a matter of attunement.
The
outcome of this debate will definitely
have far-reaching effects. It is easier for abortion to be banned if it
is
proven to pose a risk to a woman’s health. This sentiment is what was
suggested
in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on April 19, 2007 that upheld the
federal
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
So
for those who believe in prayer or who
are involved in discussions on social issues, here is another subject
to
include: For the truth and the lies to be exposed in the research and
studies concerning the link between abortion and breast
cancer.
|
| Jan. 12, 2009
The Freedom of Choice Act
(FOCA).
The Freedom
of Choice Act (FOCA), is expected to be passed in the U.S. Congress
later this month, soon after President Elect Barack Obama gets sworn
in. It appears to be a great boon to the Pro-Choice movement, and a
great blow to the Pro-Life movement. Concerned Women for America are
joining many others in their massive March for Life in Washington DC on
January 22nd. I think it's important for people in a free society to
take a stand and express their views. And, as silence is consent, it
also makes them non-accountable for the results of legislation that has
negative consequences. But lobbying government is still dealing with
politicions, who usually have more of an allegiance to popularity and
enrichment than to doing what is right. So my hope is that enough
education and information will get to the grass roots of society so
that they may see the main causes and true effects of abortion and the
alternatives available, so that they may prevent unwanted pregnancies
and prevent the need for abortion. That way it does not really matter
what abortion laws are in effect at any given time.
Dec. 8, 2008.
Forgetting Women in the Abortion Debate.
Why do the majority of women who have abortions decide to do
so?
Is it because they feel they are a free, liberated woman who has a
right to decide what happens with their body? No, not the majority.
That is part of the Pro-Choice movement's idea. Is it because they
don't consider the fetus to be human, and are too selfish to endure
having a child. No. That may be the view of some in the Pro-Life
movement. Who has actually sat down with a large number of women and
listened intently as to why they had an abortion? One person who did so
is Frederica Mathewes-Green. And her findings, documented in her book Real
Choices (see picture link to the left) were surprising.
According to most women who had abortions, they did not want
an abortion, but did so to fulfill a felt obligation to another person,
usually a parent or boyfriend. From reading what she says, it seems to
me that due to lack of support, these women act more out of fear of
rejection and the need for social survival than out of a desire for
freedom from responsibility. If there is selfishness involved, it is
more often in unsupportive family or friends than in the women herself.
Not all surveys on abortion agree with these findings. But the fact
that during her research she sat down and listened intently to these
women in different cities gives her a lot of credibility.
Pro-Life activists tend to focus a lot on the fetus, almost
at times seeing the women as the competition, and Pro-Choice activists
focus more on the ideal of the unrealistic "independent" woman. Both
tend to forget the predicament of the real woman stuck in the middle of
this challenging situation. And when we save the woman's predicament,
we save the baby as well. So I feel it is a goal worth striving for, to
rise above the heated abortion arguments and work on helping and
supporting the women, the unborn child and their mutual predicament as
a whole. (See the Home and Resources pages of this web site for ideas
on how to get involved.)
|
|
