Pope Francis approves Covid-19 vaccine despite its links to abortion

If any pope ever deserved the title of "Antichrist," it's Cardinal Bergoglio from Argentina; he gets more brazen in his promotion of ungodliness every time you look around. As reported by Tyler Van Dyke of the Washington Examiner, December 21, 2020 (links in original):

Pope Francis approved a note released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on Monday, condoning the use of coronavirus vaccines that have an indirect connection to abortion, saying it is "morally acceptable" to receive the vaccine.

"It is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process," the CDF wrote. "All vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive."

The letter was signed by Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, the Vatican prefect, and Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, Vatican secretary. Pope Francis approved the text on Dec. 17 and released the note Monday.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were involved in a commonly employed "confirmatory test" that relies on HEK293, a cell line derived from a human embryonic kidney cell from a fetus that was aborted in the 1970s. Because of this, some Catholics have expressed concerns about the ethics of getting the vaccine, with some calling for Catholics to "reject a vaccine which has been produced immorally."

The papal notice follows a similar missive from bishops in the United States who sanctioned getting the vaccine despite concerns from members of the Catholic community. One Texas church leader, Bishop Joseph Strickland, said that he "urge[d] all who believe in the sanctity of life to reject a vaccine which has been produced immorally."

"In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines," the committees wrote, referring to the use of HEK293-derived tests. "Being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good."

The CDF's note continues a trend in previous pronouncements, according to Vatican News. As recently as 2017, the Holy See said the value of vaccines and their distance from contemporary abortion practices "lead us to exclude that there is a morally relevant cooperation between those who use these vaccines today and the practice of voluntary abortion."

"The morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good," the CDF said. "In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed."

University of Alberta Pro-Life achieves victory in court over university administration

And now for something completely different: an item of good news, as reported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, January 6, 2020 (links in original):

EDMONTON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca) is pleased with the January 6, 2020 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which rejects the University of Alberta’s imposition of a $17,500 security fee on UAlberta Pro-Life. Demanded by the University in 2016, this security fee had prevented the small student club from hosting educational displays on campus. Analysis of the decision is ongoing.

The case arose in March of 2015, when the University of Alberta condoned the behaviour of a mob that physically obstructed a peaceful, stationary pro-life display on campus, which had been authorized and approved by the University. The mob used sheets, towels, banners, and mega-phones, making it impossible for passers-by to view the signs. The mob effectively silenced intellectual discussion and inquiry, in violation of the Code of Student Behaviour. Prior to this physical obstruction and disruption of a university-approved campus event, the University’s president had stated publicly that the pro-life group was entitled to express its opinions on campus. Then-president Indira Samarasekera stated the University must facilitate and protect the peaceful expression of all views, regardless of popularity.

Dr. Samarasekera’s statement was not taken seriously by campus security or by the students who violated the Code of Student Behaviour. The University’s campus security repeatedly told members of the obstructing mob that they were violating the Code of Student Behaviour, which expressly prohibits interrupting and obstructing university-related activities and events. Yet campus security took no action to stop the obstruction, or to discipline the students who identified themselves publicly and boasted on social media about their success in silencing a message they disagreed with.

In 2016, UAlberta Pro-Life applied again for a two-day campus event with a stationary display. The University then demanded a $17,500 security fee as a condition for going ahead with this campus event.

In an email, the University demanded that pro-life students pay for the wages of security guards and police, and costs of barricading the venue, and pay for the potential misconduct of people violating the University’s Code of Student Behaviour by obstructing and disrupting the display. Rather than render an invoice to the self-identified and self-confessed rule-breakers, the University instead told the small pro-life club that it could no longer set up a display on campus unless it first paid $17,500 in security fees. Unable to pay $17,500, UAlberta Pro-Life was forced to cancel the event that was planned for February 2016.

“In issuing this demand, the University of Alberta ignored the fact that any threat to safety and security that may have existed on campus came uniquely from those who physically obstructed and loudly interrupted a university-approved event,” stated lawyer John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which represents the students in their court action.

In its court application, filed in April of 2016, UAlberta Pro-Life sought a declaration that the University’s imposition of the $17,500 security fee on the club was illegal and unjustifiably violated the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of expression, protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court application asked for an order prohibiting the University from imposing such financial burdens on law-abiding students in future.

The court application also sought a ruling that the University made an unreasonable and therefore illegal decision in March of 2015 to condone the conduct of students who disrupted and blockaded the University-authorized UAlberta Pro-Life campus event, in violation of the Code of Student Behaviour. Although the University had advance notice that a mob was being organized to obstruct the display, and although Dr. Samarasekera had warned that any misbehaviour would be investigated and prosecuted, the University of Alberta Protective Services (UAPS) did nothing to stop the blockading and physical obstruction. UAPS also did not photograph or seek to identify any blockading student, even though the Code clearly prohibits students from disrupting or obstructing University-related functions.

Before taking court action, UAlberta Pro-Life first filed a formal complaint in March 2015 with UAPS against the disruptive students who had violated the Code of Student Behaviour. It took UAPS over eight months to release a decision. On November 30, 2015 UAPS confirmed that the University would not charge or prosecute students who had disrupted, blocked and obstructed the March 2015 display on campus. This decision came in spite of UAPS possessing ample photographic and video evidence as to which students had violated the Code of Student Behaviour, in addition to social media posts in which these blockading students publicly boasted about their own behaviour.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled in favour of the University in October 2017. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) intervened before the Alberta Court of Appeal, in support of freedom of expression. The students appealed, and now have a decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Backlog: South Korea's constitutional court lifts country's abortion ban

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

As reported by Nicola Smith of the London Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2019:

South Korea’s constitutional court ruled to lift the country’s 66-year-old ban on abortion on Thursday, in a landmark decision that will decriminalise the medical procedure by the end of 2020.

Seven out of nine judges declared that the current penalising of abortion was “unconstitutional” and ordered parliament to revise the 1953 law.

"(The current law) limits the pregnant woman's right to choose freely, which is against the principle that an infringement on a person's right must be kept to the minimum," said the judgement, according to the Yonhap news agency.

The watershed moment comes as the East Asian nation faces a growing, and unprecedented, women's rights movement inspired by the global #MeToo campaign and revolting against the patriarchal values underpinning South Korean society.

South Korea, Asia’s fourth largest economy, is one of the few industrialised nations where the procedure is illegal except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother faces serious health risks.

Women caught going ahead with abortions can face a prison sentence of one year and a fine of £1,340, while medical workers who help terminate a pregnancy can be jailed for up to two years.

Although prosecutions are rare, pro-abortion activists argue that the fear of jail time leaves women in a vulnerable position – unable to pay their medical bills or seek follow-up treatment.

Pro and anti-abortion activists gathered on opposite sides of the road outside the Seoul court awaiting the judgement, with one side letting out a cheer as the announcement was made.

The issue has deeply divided South Korea’s conservative society. A 2017 opinion poll showed a narrow public majority – 51.9 per cent – in favour of abolishing the ban.

However, a survey this year by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs found that three quarters of women aged 15 to 44 regarded the law as unfair.

Thursday’s ruling came in response to a 2017 complaint filed by an obstetrician standing trial for performing almost 70 abortions.

The court last upheld the ban in 2012, arguing that abortion would “end up running rampant” if punishments were abolished.

However, seven years later, six of the nine judges had been appointed by Moon Jae-in, the liberal-leaning president.

Ryu Min-hee, one of the counsels on the constitutional court case, told AFP that as long as women could not make their own choices about pregnancy and parenthood, the country “won’t be able to establish an equal society in its true sense.”

U.K. Parliament votes in favour of forcing pervert "marriage" and abortion on Northern Ireland

The forces of ungodliness are as militant and intolerant now as they were in the days of Genesis 19; as reported by William James of Reuters, July 9, 2019:

LONDON - Britain’s parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of a plan that would compel the government to legalize same-sex marriage and extend abortion rights in Northern Ireland, if the province is unable to re-establish its own devolved government.

The changes passed with a large majority in parliament in London on Tuesday and turned a routine, technical piece of legislation into a vehicle that could enact major social reforms in Northern Ireland.

The province is the only part of the United Kingdom where same-sex marriage is not allowed, and laws there forbid abortion except where a mother’s life is at risk.

To the south, once staunchly conservative Ireland legalized same-sex marriage in 2015 and liberalized its abortion laws in a separate referendum last year.

The legislation has several stages to pass before it creates a legal duty on the British government to amend Northern Ireland’s laws. That duty only comes into effect if the Northern Irish assembly, which collapsed in 2017, has not been re-established by Oct. 21.

Earlier this year, thousands of people marched through Belfast to demand the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Previous attempts to legislate for same-sex marriage have been blocked by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a key ally of British Prime Minister Theresa May, despite opinion polls in recent years showing most in the region are in favor.

Advocacy groups have called on the government to bypass the frozen local assembly and introduce legislation in the British parliament in Westminster.

Last year, Britain’s Supreme Court found Northern Ireland’s strict abortion law was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights but said it did not have the powers to make a formal declaration that the law should be changed.

Northern Ireland has been without a devolved executive for 2-1/2 years since Irish nationalists Sinn Fein withdrew from the compulsory power-sharing government with the pro-British DUP.

On-off talks to restore the executive resumed in May after a hiatus of more than a year but have made no obvious progress. Ireland’s government said last week key differences remained.

Sinn Fein, which has consistently raised the DUP’s stance on same-sex marriage as a major stumbling block in the political talks, said the issue should be addressed by the local assembly but that it was inevitable that the British government’s failure to defend “basic rights available everywhere else on the islands would be confronted”, as it was by parliament on Tuesday.

Verona declares itself a "pro-life city," in defiance of Italy's abortion law

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

Hear! Hear! As reported by Jessica Phelan of The Local (Italy), October 5, 2018 (links in original):

Verona's town council voted to declare the northern Italian city officially "pro-life", prompting outcry from campaigners for reproductive rights.

Councillors approved a motion put forward by Alberto Zelger, a member of the League party, which declares Verona a "pro-life city", demands public funding for anti-abortion groups and calls for the council to promote a regional project that encourages pregnant women to give unplanned babies up for adoption.

Despite the fact that abortion is legal everywhere in Italy, and amid protests from women's rights group Non Una di Meno – whose members showed up at city hall dressed as "handmaids" in reference to The Handmaid's Tale – the conservative-led council passed the motion on Thursday night by 21 votes to six.

The motion's backers – who included Mayor Federico Sboarina, members of the League and others from the right-wing majority, plus the head of the centre-left opposition – had also sought to add a proposal that would make it obligatory to give aborted foetuses a burial, even if the woman herself opposed it. However, that move did not make it to a vote.

Motion 434, as Zelger's proposal is officially known, calls itself "an initiative to prevent abortion and promote motherhood". The councillor, who heads a pan-European anti-abortion movement, put it forward earlier this year to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Italy's abortion law, which since 1978 has made the procedure legal for any woman in the first 90 days of pregnancy.

The motion is sharply critical of the national legislation, which it claims has "contributed to the use of abortion as a mode of contraception". The text also claims that Italy is "missing" 6 million children from its shrinking population as a consequence of abortion.

"The premises are false and don't cite official data," according to Non Una di Meno, which decries the fact that public funds will not be allocated to health services but to projects run by Catholic groups with which Councillor Zelger has links.

Suggesting that "sometimes just a little economic aid or the prospect of a job is enough to give a woman in difficulty the peace of mind needed to look after her child", his motion calls for funding for anti-abortion projects to be written into Verona's budget – including one that offers monthly payments to women who keep their babies. It also calls for materials promoting another project that encourages women to give up babies for adoption anonymously to be displayed in city hall "and all council spaces".

Italian women already face obstacles to abortion in the form of a clause in the law that allows medical staff to refuse to carry out abortions on the grounds of religious or personal beliefs. According to health ministry data from 2016, just over 70 percent of gynaecologists in Italy refuse to carry out the procedure, a figure that has risen sharply in recent years.

Italy's new minister of families, League member and former vice-mayor of Verona Lorenzo Fontana, is also openly anti-abortion. Shortly after taking office in June he told the press that he would try to reduce the number of abortions carried out in Italy, including by giving doctors greater liberty to try and dissuade women from seeking them.

The official number of abortions in Italy has already been steadily declining for decades, and the country has one of the lowest abortion rates in the EU. While the Health Ministry has argued that the decline means the rise in medical objectors isn't affecting women in crisis pregnancies, many campaigners say it's the opposite, and that increased difficulties in accessing abortion is pushing more women to resort to illegal, unsafe abortions or to seek the procedure abroad.

Meeting of Irish general practitioners reveals divisions over the issue of conscientious objection to providing abortion services

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

Let us pray that the pro-life physicians in Ireland will stand firm. As reported by Paul Cullen of the Irish Times, December 4, 2018 (bold in original):

Bitter, chaotic, uncivil and vitriolic are just some of the words used by doctors to describe the stormy extraordinary general meeting of the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) that took place behind closed doors on Sunday.

The meeting highlighted deep divisions within the medical profession on abortion (no less than in the rest of society) and on the specific issue of conscientious objection.

Dozens of mostly anti-abortion GPs walked out of the meeting – and into the lenses of waiting cameras – claiming a “serious crisis” exists about the rollout of abortion services by the Government’s planned start date of January 1st.

But what happened at the meeting also pointed to a wider disaffection among many family doctors with their treatment by the Government and by the ICGP, their professional and training body.

Difficult debate

And even among those who remained for three hours of often difficult debate after the walkout, it is clear few believe the January deadline is a realistic one.

The 300 or so doctors who attended the meeting roughly broke down into one-third pro-choice, one-third anti-abortion and one-third who “could have been either but were mostly just fed up with everything”, one doctor who attended the meeting summed it up for The Irish Times.

“It was an umbrella meeting for a lot of discontent,” said another doctor. “Many of those who spoke felt disrespected and manipulated by the Government.”

Although it was an egm, no motions were on the agenda. From the start of the meeting, however, a number of speakers sought to have the agenda suspended so that five motions could be tabled.

One asserted that general practice was not the appropriate setting in which to deliver an abortion service – the Government’s plan is for a GP-led service for terminations up to nine weeks. Another motion said there should be no obligation on GPs to refer patients for a termination.

Amid chaotic scenes, attempts by ICGP chief executive Fintan Foy to speak were repeatedly interrupted and some members hurled abuse at other speakers, according to doctors who were present. The walkout occurred after the board informed the meeting that on legal advice the motions could not be taken.

“There was an air of menace in the room. A group of 40-50 pro-life doctors were clearly squaring up for a fight,” a doctor with pro-choice views told The Irish Times.

“It was a disappointing day and a bad one for general practice, but people conducted themselves in a dignified way,” said one anti-abortion doctor who was part of the walkout. “There was no abuse while I was there.”

Even after the walkout, the atmosphere at the meeting remained tense.

“The debate was very difficult. It was respectful overall but some of the comments made were ugly,” said one doctor.

Speakers complained that doctors had never asked for a GP-led abortion service – the proposal came from Oireachtas hearings – that the issue had been badly handled by the Government and that the ICGP was acting as the Government’s “patsy”.

Doctors’ pay

Frustration at the Government’s failure to unwind cuts introduced to doctors’ pay during the recession as part of financial emergency legislation (Fempi) and the marathon talks on a new GP contract also surfaced.

It was pointed out that the €450 which GPs will receive for treating women seeking a termination is twice the amount the State pays for antenatal care over the nine months of a woman’s pregnancy.

“Doctors were annoyed at the attitude ‘just give them a few sweeties and they’ll do it’,” according to one GP who was present.

One issue that united many speakers was a belief that there was “no way” abortion could be introduced by January 1st.

Worries were expressed about legal issues arising from a lack of ultrasound or in the cases where the medication failed to work fully.

Issues relating to indemnity, referral pathways, insurance and education remain to be resolved, the meeting heard.

The group of doctors who walked out of the meeting had already begun collecting signatures for a new egm while it was still going on. They will need about 350 signatures – 10 per cent of the ICGP’s members – to force a second meeting but this is unlikely to take place until well into the new year.

Use of abortion pill slowly increases in Canada

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

The following article illustrates abortion advocates' idea of "choice": you can choose to have your child killed by surgery or by a pill. It's easy to forget that the abortion pill was legalized in Canada not by the rabidly anti-Christian Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, but by the "Conservative" government of alleged Christian Stephen Harper; and it wasn't legalized by passage of a law, but by a bureaucratic decision. As reported by Tyler Dawson in the National Post, October 15, 2018:

EDMONTON — It was Calgary’s Kensington clinic that prescribed the first dose of Mifegymiso, the two-pill abortion drug, after it became available in Canada in January 2017.

“When it arrived on our doorstep, we had a patient that day and we offered it to her; we were ready to go,” said clinic executive director Celia Posyniak.

Since Alberta began covering the cost of Mifegymiso last July, at least 2,792 doses have been prescribed — the overwhelming majority of them in Calgary — while 7,197 surgical abortions were performed in the same period. Since the drug became available in January 2017, at least 13,000 prescriptions have been written or filled across Canada, according to numbers provided to the National Post by provincial health ministries.

While the data is incomplete — Yukon wouldn’t release its numbers for privacy reasons and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island didn’t respond to the Post’s inquiries — it gives some insight into the rollout of the abortion pill in Canada. Long available in other countries, its arrival here was heralded as major progress for women’s health and a step towards addressing abortion shortages outside of urban centres.

But, as with the delivery of surgical abortion services, there are discrepancies between provinces, in terms of public funding for the drug. Newfoundland and Labrador just started offering Mifegymiso last month. Yukon is in the “final stages” of developing its coverage. Other provinces have complex setups, including Manitoba, where Mifegymiso is covered if dispensed by an abortion clinic, but goes through the provincial pharmacare plan if received elsewhere.

What the numbers suggest is that Mifegymiso hasn’t solved issues of access to abortion in rural and remote areas — at least not yet. In Alberta, for example, just 39 claims were made outside of Edmonton and Calgary between July 21, 2017 and June 28, 2018. This could be because rural doctors don’t want to be involved in abortion services, Posyniak said. It’s also possible that women living in rural areas would rather get an abortion in a large city.

“Some women may prefer to travel to larger centres to maintain confidentiality or to receive specialized care,” Rob Gereghty, assistant director of communications for Alberta Health, said in an email.

But, experts say, substantial progress has been made despite some unavoidable hiccups during the rollout of the drug. “Were still on the very early parts of the curve,” said Dr. Wendy Norman, a University of British Columbia professor who researches reproductive services.

The numbers give insight not only into the prevalence of the prescription as a method of abortion in Canada, but also the challenges that have faced clinics, doctors and patients since Health Canada approved it in 2015. The first doses didn’t arrive in Canada until 2017 — and there were supply issues throughout the year, Posyniak said. Even after the drug became available, it took awhile for provinces to start offering public coverage, and it’s still uneven across Canada. The pills can cost between $300 and $450, so, experts said, public coverage was essential to its appeal.

After Mifegymiso became legal, dispensing policies, educational programs, such as online courses, for physicians and pharmacists all took time, explaining the lag between approval, availability and access. Some clinics, such as the Kensington Clinic, were able to get up and running faster because they were already major providers of surgical abortions, with the experience necessary to quickly develop medical abortion practises.

“The change you see in different provinces’ uptake is very much reflective of the fact that it typically takes … between six months and nine months, even for a purpose-specific abortion facility, to agree on protocols and get the infrastructure in place,” Norman said.

In Quebec, that process led to major delays. For example, the college of physicians in Quebec initially wanted doctors prescribing the pill to also know how to perform surgical abortions, limiting the pool of potential prescribers.

By this May, that was abandoned, said Université Laval faculty of medicine professor Édith Guilbert in an email. Instead, there’s a three-day, in-person course at an abortion clinic for “all physicians who wanted to prescribe the abortion pill and had not been trained in family planning or whose training has not been put into practice for the past three years,” Guilbert wrote. “Quebec is the only province in Canada requiring such a training which may be difficult to take for most primary care physicians, obstetrician-gynecologists or nurse practitioners.”

Since the province began covering the cost last December, only 104 prescriptions were filled as of Aug. 6. The province had about 17,000 surgical abortions in that same time period.

Elsewhere in Canada, though, Mifegymiso is making significant inroads, especially after Health Canada relaxed rules around prescribing last fall.

“We are seeing in Canada a strong preference among those presenting for abortion, to choose a medical abortion if it is available,” Norman said. “Reports from centres offering both choices estimate that between half and three quarters of those eligible, will choose medical over surgical abortion.”

The available numbers offer evidence in support of this: New Brunswick, the first province to cover the cost of Mifegymiso, paid for 407 Mifegymiso prescriptions between June 28, 2017 and June 28, 2018, and, in that same time period, there were 654 surgical abortions. Manitoba didn’t have precise data, but estimated that about 15 per cent of its abortions will be done medically.

Frédérique Chabot, director of health promotion for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, said British Columbia has been particularly supportive of medical abortion services. In the province, about one-third of all abortions are now medical. In Calgary, Posyniak said she expects around 40 per cent of the Kensington Clinic’s clients will eventually choose the pill, now that they’re offered the option, but that the number of annual abortions — surgical or medical — “hasn’t changed at all.”

The available data may be incomplete, but it is a “very interesting pieces of this puzzle,” Chabot said.

“We’re just at the beginning and (the numbers are) demonstrating that there is actually, there was a demand, there was a need,” Chabot said. “It’s actually changing the landscape in terms of what access to a complete package of reproductive health services can look like.”

See also my post Canada's "Conservative" government legalizes RU-486 abortion pill (July 31, 2015)

Movie about notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell opens in theatres on October 12

The reader will notice the willingness of those in positions of legal and political power to ignore the law, with disastrous and evil consequences. As reported by Phelim McAleer in The Epoch Times, August 24, 2018 (updated August 29, 2018) (link in original):

I’ve just produced a movie about the true story of America’s most prolific serial killer. You might think there is nothing unusual or noteworthy about that—stories about serial killers seem to make up an awful lot of movies and prime-time TV these days.

But what if I told you that not only is it about America’s biggest serial killer—one most people have never heard of—but that it also touches on one of the most contentious and divisive issues in America today?

The film is about Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor who is serving several life sentences for murder. And his case has been mostly ignored by a pro-choice media that does not want to report on any story that shines a negative light on abortion.

It seems this is the perfect time for a spotlight to be shone on what’s really happening in abortion clinics across the country.

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy means that, for the first time, there might be an abortion-skeptic majority on the bench. This has animated and alarmed abortion supporters. They are determined to stop Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Planned Parenthood has pledged to give over $30 million to pro-choice candidates in the midterm elections. It is going to become one of the hottest topics in an already heated political environment.

So what exactly do abortion lobbyists and Cecile Richards want to preserve? What rights need to be protected from the Kavanaugh grouping? Do we really need fewer, not more, regulations, as abortion advocates maintain?

The fact is, most people know very little about what goes on behind closed doors in the nation’s abortion clinics. We didn’t, either, until we started researching for the film.

Gosnell was a respected doctor in the highly regulated state of Pennsylvania. Gosnell also happened to be a serial killer who kept killing and getting away with it, despite those regulations. Inspections of Gosnell’s clinic uncovered serious violations and health hazards, but officials took no action and refused to investigate further.

But worse was to come in 1995, when Tom Ridge was elected governor of Pennsylvania as a “pro-choice” Republican. He won and immediately, in contravention of the law, announced an end to the already cursory annual inspections.

The decision cleared the way for Gosnell to operate what a grand jury would later describe as a “baby charnel house” while regulators looked the other way.

A Philadelphia jury eventually found Gosnell guilty on three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. Investigators believed that over the course of 30 years, he killed hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Despite this dramatic evidence, the trial was initially not covered by the mainstream media. Eventually, a social media campaign forced them to send reporters and give the case some coverage.

It seems no one wants to learn from the Gosnell case.

Striking down a Texas law aimed at monitoring abortion clinics, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg described Gosnell as a “rogue practitioner.” Ginsberg offered little in the way of proof for her claim. But evidence from a pair of recent congressional investigations has revealed what other abortion providers have done behind closed doors despite apparently ironclad laws and regulations.

The Senate judiciary committee and a House select investigative panel looked into claims that Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to private labs. The probes soon widened to look at the other illegal behaviors of some abortion practitioners. The Senate committee report detailed the practices of a Texas abortionist that bear a striking resemblance to Gosnell’s grisly work.

According to one employee’s testimony, every week abortions concerning “three to four infants would show signs of life.” And just like Gosnell, the doctor would immediately kill them. The employee said he employed Gosnell’s technique of “snipping the infant’s spinal cord with scissors.”

But the investigations’ most shocking findings detailed how the body-part selling business worked.

One company, Advanced Biosciences Resources (ABR), produced sales orders and invoices that showed they paid Planned Parenthood $55 for a baby’s brain, then sold it to a researcher for over $3,000—a profit of 2,800 percent.

The Senate investigation published invoices that showed ABR bought a fetus from Planned Parenthood for $60. According to their own sales figures, they “sold its brain to one customer for $325; both of its eyes for $325 each ($650 total) to a second customer, a portion of its liver for $325 to a third customer; its thymus for $325 and another portion of liver to a fourth customer; and its lung for $325 to a fifth customer.”

Another clinic sold the skin of a Down syndrome baby for $325.

Our film does not look at these later investigations. We focus on the Gosnell investigation and how he was allowed to keep killing. We look at the heroes who put him behind bars.

If Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice, abortion in America will come under a massive spotlight. It is important that the spotlight reveals truths, not myths. Our film is part of that process.

Phelim McAleer is a journalist and film producer. His new film, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer,” will be released nationwide on Oct. 12. For more information, visit GosnellMovie.com

Argentine Senate rejects legalization of abortion two months after narrow majority in Chamber of Deputies votes in favour

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

Argentina threatens to head in the same self-destructive direction as that recently favoured by Ireland. As reported by BBC News, June 14, 2018 (bold, links in original):

Catholic Argentina's lower house has backed a bill legalising abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

After a divisive debate lasting more than 22 hours, 129 members of the Chamber of Deputies voted in favour and 125 against while one abstained.

The bill will now have to go to the Senate.

President Mauricio Macri is strongly opposed to the bill but has said that he would not veto it if it was passed by both houses.

Last-minute turnaround
Abortion is currently illegal in Argentina, except in cases of rape or when the life or health of the woman is at risk. Women seeking abortions also have to apply to a judge for permission, which critics say can unnecessarily delay the procedure.

Up until three hours before the vote, those against the bill seemed to be in the majority until a lawmaker in the province of La Pampa, Sergio Ziliotto, announced on Twitter that he and two colleagues had changed their minds and would vote "yes".

Junto a Melina Delú y Ariel Rauschenberger, los 3 diputados nacionales peronistas por La Pampa votaremos a FAVOR de la despenalización del aborto.

— Sergio Ziliotto (@ZiliottoSergio) June 14, 2018

The announcement invigorated pro-choice lawmakers at a time when despondency was beginning to set in after the night-long debate.

Supporters of the bill, many of whom had spent the entire night demonstrating outside of the Congress building in Buenos Aires, cheered and hugged when the result of the vote was announced.

Many also took to social media to celebrate with #AbortoSeraLey (#AbortionWillBeLaw), a hashtag that is trending on Twitter in Argentina.

Among those celebrating the vote as a "historic step" was the secretary general of human rights group Amnesty International, Salil Shetty.

Historic step forward for women's rights in #Argentina today! It's not over yet, but the vote to decriminalise abortion up to 14 weeks sends a powerful message which will reverberate across the whole region #AbortoSeraLey https://t.co/cwBM19SWGn pic.twitter.com/VFKoUubykF

— Salil Shetty (@SalilShetty) June 14, 2018

There was high drama even as the result came in. The electronic board inside the chamber initially showed 131 in favour and 123 against but two lawmakers immediately shouted that their vote had not been recorded accurately.

The speaker then proceeded to ask a number of deputies to confirm how they had voted and after some tense minutes confirmed that the bill had been passed.

'Innocent blood'
The bill will now go to the Senate, where it is expected to be put to a vote in September.

Analysts say it faces an uphill battle in the upper chamber, where a number of senators have already expressed their opposition.

Women's rights activists said they would continue to campaign vigorously for the bill to be passed.

They argue that legalising abortions is a public health issue, with many women currently taking huge risks with their health and sometimes even their lives when they resort to illegal terminations.

Some of the lawmakers taking part in the debate said they had been swayed by the argument. They said that while they personally remained opposed to abortions, they saw the need for women to have access to safe, legal terminations.

But many others did not change their minds. Horacio Goicoechea of the Radical Civic Union made an impassioned plea for his colleagues to vote "no", saying: "We're building a law on innocent blood."

See my post Irish referendum results in removal of right to life of unborn from the constitution (May 26, 2018)
August 10, 2018 update: Good news, as reported by Scott Squires of Reuters, August 9, 2018:

BUENOS AIRES - Argentine senators rejected a bill to legalize abortion after an impassioned debate ran into the early hours of Thursday, pushing back against a groundswell of support from a surging abortion rights movement.

The Senate voted 38 to 31 against the proposed measure, which would have legalized a woman’s right to seek an abortion into the 14th week of pregnancy. The bill had narrowly passed in the lower house in July.

Families and clergy in baby-blue bandanas gathered outside the congressional palace as the result came in just before 3 a.m., waving Argentine flags in support of the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance in Pope Francis’ home country.

“What this vote showed is that Argentina is still a country that represents family values,” anti-abortion activist Victoria Osuna, 32, told Reuters.

Current Argentine law only permits abortions in cases of rape, or if the mother’s health is at risk.

Abortion rights supporters, clad in green bandanas that have become a symbol of the movement, danced to drum lines and swarmed the city’s streets to the end, despite a biting wind and cold rain.

Many had camped in front of Argentina’s National Congress since Wednesday night.

“I’m still optimistic. It didn’t pass today, but it will pass tomorrow, it will pass the next day,” said abortion rights supporter Natalia Carol, 23. “This is not over.”

Uruguay and Cuba are the only Latin American countries that now have broadly legalized abortion.

In Brazil, the Supreme Court is set to consider whether current law, which allows terminating pregnancies only in cases of rape, fetal deformation or when the mother’s life is in danger, is unconstitutional.

But passing a pro-abortion law will face hurdles in Brazil’s increasingly conservative Congress, with a growing Evangelical Christian caucus that is staunchly opposed.

Women’s rights advocates, however, hope that a more liberal judiciary in Brazil will at least decriminalize abortion to help avoid deaths from botched terminations in a country where hundreds of thousands of women resort to clandestine clinics each year.

Ahead of the Senate vote in Argentina, President Mauricio Macri called the debate “a win for democracy.” Macri said he was personally against abortion, but would sign the bill if it passed.

Argentina’s abortion rights movement, backed by feminist groups galvanized in recent years to stop violence against women, argued that the bill would end unregulated abortions that government data show as the leading cause of maternal deaths.

There are at least 350,000 illegal abortions in Argentina every year, the Ministry of Health estimates, though international human rights groups say the number may be higher.

The move to legalize abortion in Argentina is a “public health and human rights imperative,” said New York-based Human Rights Watch.

“Just because the bill got shot down, it will not stop the movement,” said Paula Avila-Guillen, a director of Women’s Equality Center, an abortion rights advocacy group. “We will be there at the next legislative opportunity.”

Irish referendum results in removal of right to life of unborn from the constitution

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

Ireland seems determined to follow the rest of the West in its societal suicide, as reported by Catholic News Service, May 26, 2018 (links in original):

DUBLIN – Voters in Ireland have opted to remove the right to life of the unborn from the country's constitution, paving the way for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

With votes counted from 30 of Ireland's 40 constituencies, results from the nationwide referendum showed that 67.3 per cent of citizens opted to remove the Eighth Amendment from the constitution, while 32.7 per cent voted to retain it. Turnout was 64.5 per cent.

Voters inserted the original amendment in the constitution in 1983 by a margin of 2-1, and it "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

That text will now be deleted and replaced with an article stating that "provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

Minister for Health Simon Harris has said he would introduce legislation that would allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, up to 24 weeks on unspecified grounds for the health of the mother, and up to birth where the child is diagnosed with a life-limiting condition that means he or she may not live long after birth.

An exit poll conducted by the Ireland's national broadcaster RTE asked voters what motivated them to opt for either "yes" or "no." Among "yes" voters, the most important issues were the right to choose (84 per cent), the health or life of the woman (69 per cent), and pregnancy as a result of rape (52 per cent).

Among "no" voters, they cited the right to life of the unborn (76 per cent), the right to live of those with Down syndrome or other disabilities (36 per cent), and religious views (28 per cent).

John McGuirk, spokesman for Save the Eighth, which campaigned for a "no" vote, described the outcome as "a tragedy of historic proportions."

"The Eighth Amendment did not create a right to life for the unborn child – it merely acknowledged that such a right exists, has always existed and will always exist," he said, insisting that "a wrong does not become right simply because a majority support it."

"We are so proud of all of those who stood with us in this campaign – our supporters, our donors, our families and our loved ones," he said. "This campaign took a huge personal toll on all of us who were involved, and we have been so grateful for their support."

Insisting that pro-life campaigners will continue their efforts, McGuirk told Catholic News Service: "Shortly, legislation will be introduced that will allow babies to be killed in our country. We will oppose that legislation. If and when abortion clinics are opened in Ireland, because of the inability of the government to keep their promise about a (general-practitioner-led health) service, we will oppose that as well.

"Abortion was wrong yesterday. It remains wrong today. The constitution has changed, but the facts have not," he said.

Ruth Cullen of the LoveBoth campaign insisted that the organization will try to ensure that the Irish prime minister, or Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, is true to his pledge that the government will work to ensure that abortions are rare.

No matter what happens in the coming days, weeks and months, our work will continue to protect unborn babies and their mothers #LoveBoth #WeWillOvercome
— LoveBoth (Official) (@loveboth8) May 26, 2018

"We will hold the Taoiseach to his promise that repeal would only lead to abortion in very restrictive circumstances. He gave his word on this, now he must deliver on it. No doubt many people voted for repeal based on the Taoiseach's promises in this regard," she said.

Commenting on the campaign, Cullen said: "We are immensely proud and grateful to all our volunteers throughout the country who worked tirelessly over recent months to ensure unborn babies would not be deprived of legal protections.

"The campaign to protect unborn babies will endure," she said.

Eamonn Conway, a theologian at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick, told Catholic News Service he was "greatly saddened" by the result. However, he pointed out that "the truth is that the Irish Constitution merely recognized the right to life that is antecedent to all law. This most fundamental of all human rights is not extinguished or diminished because our constitution no longer acknowledges it. What is diminished is our constitution," he said.

Conway said he believes "the task facing the Catholic Church now is to ensure that it makes every effort to accompany with the healing compassion of Christ everyone caught up in the tragic circumstances that surround an abortion ... from grieving parents to medical practitioners."

Archbishop Eamon Martin, primate of All-Ireland, was expected to address the referendum outcome during a homily at the country's national Marian shrine at Knock, County Mayo, May 27.

The final results, as reported by the Irish Times, May 27, 2018, showed the "Yes" (pro-abortion) side winning 66.4% to 33.6%.

Alberta's socialist government legislates further restrictions against anti-abortion protests, as "Conservative" leader refuses to conserve

Support for abortion and alphabet sexual perversion seem to be articles of religious faith for the accidental government of Alberta's New Democratic Party. As reported by Dean Bennett of Canadian Press, May 9, 2018:

EDMONTON — Premier Rachel Notley's NDP government made more changes to its abortion clinic bill Wednesday while the Opposition United Conservatives continued to register their displeasure by walking out en masse during votes.

Government members accepted an amendment from Independent Derek Fildebrandt to specifically include the role of municipal bylaw officers in enforcing the proposed legislation, which mandates no-protest zones around clinics.

However, they rejected a second Fildebrandt motion aimed at ensuring the bill won't restrict the freedom of the media to cover news events surrounding the clinics.

"I don't think (privacy of clinic participants) has been abused by the media to date and I don't think it would be abused in the future, but I think (press freedom) is an important aspect to take note of when we're writing legislation," Fildebrandt told the house.

NDP Infrastructure Minister Sandra Jansen spoke against the amendment.

Jansen, a former journalist, said mainstream journalists already handle the clinics respectfully. But Jansen said some anti-abortionists billing themselves as journalists would use the amendment to breach the no-go zone and harass staff and patients.

"While I appreciate the effort, I will say that I find the implications of this amendment frightening," Jansen said.

Bill 9 would create minimum 50 metre no-protest zones around abortion clinics.

It would also make it illegal for anyone to harass a doctor by phone, mail or online to convince them to not provide abortion services. Anyone breaking the law would face fines up to $10,000 or a year in jail.

UCP Leader Jason Kenney has said the legislation is unnecessary because abortion clinics already have legal tools at their disposal to deal with protests. He said he and his caucus are abstaining from what they call deliberately political and provocative legislation.

Five of the 25-member UCP caucus sat silently during debate of Fildebrandt's amendments and walked out when the votes were called.

The UCP has now left the house en masse six times during discussions on Bill 9.

The NDP says the UCP members are failing to meet their responsibilities as legislature members by walking out on an important bill.

Earlier Wednesday during question period, Kenney questioned the government's sincerity, noting, "Bill 9 is something they did not even think was important enough to mention in their (recent) throne speech let alone their (2015 election) platform."

The UCP caucus also walked out of the vote late Tuesday night when the government accepted an amendment by NDP backbencher Deborah Drever to increase the safety zones to 150 metres if the proposed minimum of 50 metres doesn't prove effective.

Fildebrandt argued against it.

He said while he is in favour of legislated protections for women and staff, that must be balanced with respect for freedom of speech.

If the bill becomes law, Alberta would join British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador in creating so-called bubble zones.

Notley has said the UCP absence at debate speaks to the party's broader unofficial policy of not standing up for women's rights.

This past weekend, United Conservatives voted to adopt a policy that would mandate parents be told when a minor has "invasive medical procedures."

Those on both sides of the abortion debate say that would open the door to mandatory parental consent in abortion procedures for minors.

Kenney has said he will decide what resolutions are part of the party's election platform and reiterated he won't legislate on abortion.

As reported by Mr. Bennett on May 8, 2018:

EDMONTON — United Conservative Leader Jason Kenney says he will not legislate on abortion even though party members passed a resolution that advocates on both sides say could do just that.

"I've been clear that we won't be bringing forward any legislative measures on abortion," Kenney said at the legislature Tuesday.

At the party's founding convention on the weekend, members voted 74 per cent in favour of a resolution that would require parents to be notified before any invasive medical procedure was performed on a minor.

The anti-abortion group Wilberforce Project spoke in favour of the motion and urged delegates to adopt it.

Kenney said the resolution was put forward by a delegate whose child was vaccinated without his knowledge.

"The resolution spoke to a general concern about parents wanting to be involved in their children's health, particularly for young children," he said.

"Obviously we support the idea that children should receive vaccines that are necessary to protect their health, but parents should not be surprised when they learn their child has been given a shot."

Premier Rachel Notley and Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said the resolution was aimed at interfering in abortions.

Notley said the resolution, along with the refusal of Kenney's caucus to debate or vote on a bill that would create safe zones around abortion clinics, exhibits a disturbing pattern.

"You put those two things together, the fact of the matter is women in Alberta would not have anybody standing up for them in the UCP caucus," Notley said.

"I want all women to know in this province that we respect their bodily autonomy, that we respect their right to access legal services without having to get someone to sign a permission slip," added Hoffman.

Kenney, a former federal Conservative cabinet minister, has said in the past what while he is against abortion, he won't legislate on the issue.

The resolution was one of two contentious social policies adopted by party members at the convention.

Members also voted 57 per cent in favour of parents being told when their children are involved in any subject of a religious or sexual nature, including after-school social clubs such as gay-straight alliances.

The issue sparked heated debate on the convention floor. Kenney said Sunday he interpreted the resolution differently and wouldn't implement it the way members saw it.

Kenney has made it clear that while members can vote for policies, it's his job to craft a platform that would work for four million Albertans should the United Conservatives win power.

"It's not my intention to get into any contentious social issues in our platform," said Kenney.

Gay-straight alliances are social clubs set up by students to help LGBTQ children feel welcome and to lessen any chance of bullying. Under Alberta law, students can get a gay-straight alliance if they ask for one and schools are forbidden from telling parents if their children are in one.

Advocates have suggested some parents would oppose their child's participation and that, by notifying parents, children would not take the risk to sign up and the social groups would die.

Notley said she is concerned that Kenney, if he were premier, would either weaken the existing law or leave it on the books but not take action if it were ignored.

She said the former Progressive Conservative government did not push to enforce existing rules around gay-straight alliances.

"Based on the much more extreme positions that were adopted by the UCP last weekend, we can expect very clearly that they wouldn't enforce the rules that we put in place."

Fatboy Kenney is a textbook example of a "conservative"--conserving nothing having to do with Western civilization, merely conserving what the enemies of Western civilization have achieved. This is at least consistent with his record in federal politics, when, as a member of the cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's "Conservative" government from 2006-2015, he refused to do anything to support efforts by pro-life backbenchers to place any restrictions on abortion. This was the government that was accused by some of its more hysterical opponents--especially in the media--of attempting to implement a Christian theocracy. Fatboy Kenney has also made it clear that he will do nothing to impede the sexual perversion agenda. In fact, his United "Conservative" Party (the only thing they're united on is the desire for power) is expressing its disappointment at not being allowed to march in this year's perversion pride parade in Edmonton. As federal Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in 2011, Mr. Kenney was pleased to announce a policy of admitting more sodomites and lesbians to the country, and declined to comment when the "Conservative" government legalized the abortion pill in 2015. Fatboy Kenney entered politics as a member of the Reform Party of Canada, but like the rest of that now-defunct party, he lost interest in reform and now can't be bothered to conserve anything.

When Premier Notley's father Grant was leader of the Alberta New Democrats, it was possible to be a member of that party and to be pro-life, and even to get nominated as a candidate. I remember a pro-life NDP member running as a candidate in a provincial election in the 1980s. When I was a student at the University of Alberta in the early 1980s I was acquainted with a fellow student who was a supporter (he may have been a member, but I don't recall) of the provincial NDP, who was pro-life, and wasn't afraid to be at odds with the majority of those in the party.

Meanwhile, John Carpay, a lawyer from Calgary who is doing tremendous work to defend Canadian Christians' rapidly-diminishing freedoms, argues that the new Alberta law is unconstitutional and unnecessary. As he stated on May 9, 2018 (updated May 10, 2018):

Alberta Health Minister Sarah Hoffman recently claimed that banning peaceful anti-abortion protests near abortion clinics is not about freedom of expression. Yet she has also expressed confidence that her new law would withstand a constitutional challenge.

By speaking of a constitutional challenge, it seems that she knows that this new law tramples on free expression as protected by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It’s not easy to make a case against peaceful expression on a public sidewalk, so the minister, along with Edmonton and Calgary abortion clinic managers, refer to a collection of illegal and potentially illegal behaviours: “aggression, threats, yelling, screaming, interference, bullying, intimidation, harassment, shaming, and blocking access.” Perhaps these examples of illegal behaviour will distract people from the prohibition on Charter-protected expression.

It is a criminal assault to push, shove, hit, or punch someone, or even touch someone without consent. Uttering threats to harm a person’s life, body, or property is also criminal. Disturbing the peace by yelling and screaming is criminal, and also contrary to municipal noise bylaws.

Criminal Code Section 430 makes it illegal to “obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.” It’s criminal to block access to someone going about their business and engaging in legal activities (which includes getting an abortion). All of these actions could be characterized as aggression, which is illegal, along with interference, threats, yelling, screaming, and blocking access.

But what about bullying, intimidation, shaming, and harassment? Intimidation caused by physical blocking, interference, or obstruction is already illegal.

Intimidation caused by threats is also already illegal. An environmentalist protester can’t tell a logger: “Chop down that tree and I will chop you down.” But threatening some form of moral consequences or psychological harm (e.g. “you are on the wrong side of history,” “karma will repay you for harming Mother Earth” or “your lust for profits is killing the forest”) is perfectly legal.

Intimidation caused by someone criticizing your behaviour is part of living in a free country. How can citizens debate a topic (pipelines, climate change, Donald Trump’s presidency) without referring—directly or indirectly—to standards of good and evil? In contrast to theocratic Iran and communist North Korea, free societies don’t dictate the correct answers to difficult questions...

...In a free society, nobody can be exempt from having her or his actions criticized as immoral by others. Witness the predictable litany of judgment cast by social justice warriors: racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Should governments pass laws to create “safe” zones where no person will hear such words?

What holds true for intimidation also holds true for bullying, shaming, and harassment. Feelings of being bullied, shamed, and harassed are normal in a free country, and to be expected, absent physical interference or threats of harm. All Canadians have a right to denounce conduct they believe to be wrong. People exercise this right every day on blogs and Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere, denouncing what they see as political, economic, or environmental injustice.

Whenever citizens exercise this right to speak out against actions they believe to be unjust, this will necessarily offend those who carry out such actions. Feeling offended is the price we pay for living in a free country.

Alberta’s proposed law is about government deciding that the “wrong” opinion can’t be expressed peacefully on a public sidewalk, just because some people feel very offended by this opinion.

Under the pretence of stopping already-illegal behaviour, this law targets the heart of constitutionally protected expression. This law should therefore be resisted and rejected by all who cherish free society—pro-choice and anti-abortion people alike.

New test that determines a baby's sex after just eight weeks sparks fears of sex-selection abortions in countries such as China and India

As reported by Stephen Matthews and George Martin in the London Daily Mail, April 24, 2018 (link in original):

Scientists have sparked controversy after creating a pin-prick test that can determine the gender of a baby after just eight weeks.

Concerns have been raised the test could trigger a rise in sex-selective abortions, especially in countries such as India and China where families desire boys over girls for cultural reasons.

A recently published government report in India found that the country has 63 million fewer woman then it should because families are choosing to abort their female babies.

The situation is much the same in China, where men outnumber women by 34 million - significantly more than the entire population of Australia.

Experts claim the controversial one-child policy, which lasted from the 1970s until 2015, helped to create the imbalance as families sought to have a son.

It is feared the new pin-prick test could fuel a 'genocide' of female babies in India and China as parents are given more time than previously to make a decision on whether to abort their babies.

Experts also fear the test - which is similar to a version set to be rolled out on the NHS this year - could also fuel terminations in the UK, where the abortion time limit is 24 weeks.

Parents-to-be are currently offered the chance to find out the sex of their child at their 20-week scan in the UK. But it is not 100 per cent accurate.

Some critics have also expressed concerns such tests could lead to a rise in sex-selection tourism. However, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service today condemned such fears as 'unfounded'.

The pin-prick test has been created by Brazilian researchers who set out to improve the existing non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), which already spots Down's syndrome and two other genetic conditions.

The updated test, created by a team at Sabin Laboratory in Brasilia - the capital of Brazil - have updated the NIPT to make it able to spot the sex of a foetus with just a drop of blood.

In experiments on 101 pregnant women, the team led by Dr Gustavo Barra found the test was completely accurate from eight weeks gestation.

Some private firms in the UK already charge women keen to discover the gender of their baby hundreds of pounds to take the test during the first trimester.

Hugh Whittall, director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, today told MailOnline: 'Many pregnant women and couples find out the sex of their foetus simply so they can prepare for a baby of one sex or the other, or because they are curious.

'However, revealing the sex of the foetus at such an early stage of pregnancy increases the risk of terminations on the basis of sex taking place.

'There is limited evidence about the extent to which sex selective terminations are taking place in the UK, but there is a real possibility that permitting very early tests for sex may encourage sex selection, both among UK residents and through "sex selection tourism".

'Given that there are few benefits to most pregnant women of finding out the sex of the fetus in the first few weeks of pregnancy, we believe that test providers should not be allowed to give out this kind of information.'

Dr Andrew McLennan, a gynaecologist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, told NewScientist that it could lead to more sex-selective abortions.

U.S. government moves to protect religious freedom of health care workers

As reported by Toni Clarke of Reuters, January 18, 2018 (bold in original):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is seeking to further protect the “conscience and religious freedom” of health workers whose beliefs prevent them from carrying out abortions and other procedures, in an effort likely to please conservative Christian activists and other supporters of President Donald Trump.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Thursday it will create a division within its Office of Civil Rights to give it “the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom.”

Healthcare workers, hospitals with religious affiliations, and medical students among others have been “bullied” by the federal government to provide these services despite existing laws on religious and conscience rights, the top HHS official said.

“The federal government has hounded religious hospitals...forcing them to provide services that violate their consciences,” Acting HHS Secretary Eric Hargan said. “Medical students, too, have learned to do procedures that violate their consciences.”

Some of the services at issue include abortion and euthanasia, according to HHS documents. Politico reported on Wednesday that the protections would extend to care for transgender patients seeking to transition.

Democrats criticized the move as a denial of healthcare for women and others, while legal and medical ethics experts said that such exemptions have legal limits and would be challenged in court.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray said in a statement she was “deeply troubled” by reports of the new division and that “any approach that would deny or delay health care to someone and jeopardize their well being for ideological reasons is unacceptable.”

LEGAL AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS

The division would enforce the legal protection and conduct compliance reviews, audits and other enforcement actions to ensure that health care providers are allowing workers with religious or moral objections to opt out.

As the division seeks to back exemptions, it is likely to face legal and ethical challenges.

“There will be challenges to any step along the way for any expansion of religious exceptions,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She said such challenges would be “pretty strong.”

Hamilton said that while courts had frequently upheld religious exemptions in recent years, they have recognized limits. For example, she said, courts have rejected a church’s bid to be exempt from federal marijuana laws, and a Pennsylvania order of nun’s effort to avoid eminent domain.

Professionals take an oath to serve people who are sick, Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison explained. They are also the only ones licensed to provide those services and must do so without discrimination, she said.

“When the director of the office of civil rights is quoted as saying that ‘No physician should have to choose between helping a sick person or following their personal conscience,’ the director is simply wrong. That choice was made the moment they became physicians,” she said.

Charo and other medical ethicists raised concerns about patients who may be denied medically necessary, legally protected care because it might violate an individual physician’s beliefs.

“What protections exist if a doctor can choose not to take care of me because of my gender or my sexual orientation or because I have an ectopic pregnancy and don’t know it and I‘m at a Catholic hospital and it’s the only hospital in town?” said Dr. Lainie Ross of the University of Chicago’s MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.

The American Medical Association declined to comment on the policy because it has not seen a written proposal. However, the American College of Physicians said the new policy “must not lead to discrimination” against any category or class of patients.

The HIV Medicine Association called the policy “regressive” and said it shifts the foundation for medical decisions “from sound scientific practice to healthcare providers’ personal beliefs.”

Asma Uddin, a fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and a Muslim, spoke at an HHS press conference about the need for protection against what she said was a variety of ways Muslim women patients are forced to violate their conscience, particularly with respect to modesty.

The creation of the new HHS division is in accordance with an executive order signed by Trump last May called “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” The order was followed by new rules aimed at removing a legal mandate that health insurance provide contraception.

Several proponents of the changes cited the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns which runs care homes for the elderly, which had challenged a legal mandate under Obamacare, the common name for former President Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.

In October, HHS introduced rules that would let businesses or non-profit organizations lodge religious or moral objections to obtain an exemption from that mandate that employers provide contraceptives coverage in health insurance with no co-payment.

Planned Parenthood said the move was the latest example of the Trump administration’s efforts to block women, transgender people and other communities from access to care.

Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion rights, said the HHS had taken a strong step forward to allow individuals and organization to exclude abortions or other services that violate their conscience.

50 years after Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill to legalize perversion, Justin Trudeau apologizes to perverts

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:24-32

On December 22, 1967, Pierre Trudeau, Justice Minister in the cabinet of Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson presented his omnibus bill reforming the Criminal Code, and told the House of Commons that "There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." His bill called for decriminalization of "homosexual acts" performed in private; making it legal for women to get an abortion if a committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother; legalization of lotteries; further controls on gun ownership; and breathalyzer tests on suspected drunk drivers if police had reasonable and probable cause. As in 2017, December 22, 1967 was a Friday--it's so typical of politicians with devious purposes to try and slip things through on a Friday--and the Friday before Christmas at that, when most members of Parliament are thinking about going home, if they haven't already left.

Pierre Trudeau succeeded Mr. Pearson as Prime Minister on April 20, 1968 (appropriately, Adolf Hitler's birthday). The omnibus bill was passed and became law in 1969, and became a watershed event in Canadian history, signalling that secular humanism, and not the Bible, was now the basis of Canadian law. And Pierre Trudeau's government and those since haven't shied away from placing the state into the other rooms of the nation.

50 years later, Pierre Trudeau's mentally and morally retarded, crooked, pothead son Justin is Prime Minister, driving perhaps the final nails into the coffin of what was recognizable as Canada before Pierre took over as Prime Minister. On November 27, 2017, he went beyond his father, as reported by Canadian Press, November 28, 2017:

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized Tuesday on behalf of the federal government and all Canadians for decades of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ2 community.

Dozens of people -- including two of Trudeau's own children, Xavier and Ella-Grace -- crammed into the various House of Commons galleries to witness the historic occasion, which the prime minister said he hopes will finally allow the healing process to begin for those affected.

"This is the devastating story of people who were branded criminals by the government -- people who lost their livelihoods, and in some cases, their lives," Trudeau said.

"These aren't distant practices of governments long forgotten. This happened systematically, in Canada, with a timeline more recent than any of us would like to admit."

The keenly anticipated expression of regret was accompanied by several initiatives to make amends to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and Indigenous people known as "two-spirit."

The government introduced legislation which, if passed, will allow the expungement of criminal records for people convicted of consensual sexual activity with same-sex partners.

The government has also earmarked $110 million to compensate members of the military and other federal agencies whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual orientation, the centrepiece of a class-action settlement with employees who were investigated, sanctioned and sometimes fired as part of the so-called "gay purge."

As part of the settlement, the government will also pay an additional $20 million for legal fees and administration and devote at least $15 million more for projects that will "promote collective reconciliation and remembrance," including museum exhibits, a national monument and possible archival projects.

Apart from the settlement, the government is putting $250,000 toward community projects to combat homophobia and provide support for people in crisis, and plans a commemoration in 2019 to mark the 50th anniversary of the federal decriminalization of homosexual acts.

"The No. 1 job of any government is to keep its citizens safe. And on this, we have failed LGBTQ2 people, time and time again," Trudeau said in his remarks.

"It is with shame and sorrow and deep regret for the things we have done that I stand here today and say: We were wrong. We apologize.

"I am sorry. We are sorry."

That was the point at when those in the galleries, who had sat quietly listening to the prime minister speak, began to applaud, before they were eventually joined on their feet by all MPs for a long-lasting ovation at the straightforward expression of regret.

The discriminatory policies that often ruined careers and lives had their roots in federal efforts that began as early as the 1940s to delve into the personal lives of people who were considered security risks as a result of what was considered "character weakness."

"This thinking was prejudiced and flawed," Trudeau said. "Sadly, what resulted was nothing short of a witch hunt.

"Those arrested and charged were purposefully and vindictively shamed. Their names appeared in newspapers in order to humiliate them, and their families. Lives were destroyed. And tragically, lives were lost."

After Trudeau was done, he was embraced one by one by a group of Liberal MPs who identify as gay or lesbian, including Randy Boissonnault, a special adviser to the prime minister on sexual orientation and gender issues.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer echoed Trudeau's sentiment.

"We are here today because many years ago and for too long the government of Canada failed in its duty to protect the basic rights of hundreds, thousands of the very Canadians who have dedicated their lives to public service," Scheer said, calling it "a terrible and unjust moment" in the history of the country.

Scheer, a social conservative who has voted against a transgender rights bill and refused to take part in gay pride parades, asserted that "all human beings have the same value and dignity, deserve the same respect."

Still, many Conservative MPs did not attend the apology.

Guy Caron, the parliamentary leader for the NDP, said he welcomed the apology and said the NDP would work with the Liberals to make sure the expungements legislation is passed quickly.

Still, like Trudeau, he noted how much more work there is to do to end all discrimination against the LGBTQ community, including restrictions on sexually active gay men donating blood.

"This would be a good time to stop doing things the government might have to apologize for in the future," said Caron.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May spoke passionately about those who were kicked out of the military and public service for who they are, noting that Canada experienced a loss of potential.

"Our stupidity, blindness and ignorance harmed our society while bringing real injustices and long-lasting pain on people who did nothing wrong and wanted to serve our country," said May.

I take great offense at this apology; Prime Minister Selfie has the nerve to apologize for all Canadians, but he doesn't speak for me. And as is almost always the case now with hysterical demands for apologies for alleged historical wrongs, no attempt is ever made to put events into their historical context. 21st century politically correct Social Justice Warriors sit in judgment on alleged villains of previous centuries, with no attempt to understand their views or any reasons they might have had for doing what they did. When it came to the government's obligation to "keep its citizens safe," maybe that's what previous governments were doing in attempting to prevent situations in which people in sensitive positions could be open to blackmail or were likely to put their sexual loyalties above their patriotic feelings.

This apology embodies Vox Day's three laws of Social Justice Warriors: 1. They always lie; 2. They always double down; 3. They always project. They lie when they say that sodomites are still being discriminated against today. Just what discrimination are they facing in Canada Trudeaupia today? They certainly seem to be overrepresented in positions of influence and power; you almost have to by "openly gay" to get elected to public office. They're never content with what they can get, but always demand more; they keep pushing until the balance tips in their direction, and the moment it does, they declare the issue settled, and cut off all further debate. And the sodomites and their alphabet derivatives exemplify law number 3 by accusing others of what they're guilty, such as claiming to be victims of discrimination while practicing it themselves. For example, neither I nor any Christian I know believes that sodomites or lesbians should be prohibited from practicing law, but sodomite/lesbian activists are trying to prohibit evangelical Trinity Western University from establishing a law school.

"Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer echoed Trudeau's sentiment"--that's becoming a familiar refrain. It used to be that "Conservatives" were a few decades behind the Liberals in saying "me, too," but the gap is rapidly narrowing. For instance, as late as the 1997 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada, then in power, said that they'd never legalize "gay marriage" (of course, they lied, and did legalize it a few years later). In 2016, the "Conservative" Party of Canada officially made "gay marriage" a "Conservative" value. As for the current Liberals, they're a bunch of antichrists, perverts, and potheads--their leader is at least two of the three. They have the same name as the party that's been around since before Confederation, but bear no resemblance at all to the party as it was until as late the mid-1960s. Mackenzie King, who led the Liberal Party of Canada from 1919-1948 and still holds the Commonwealth record of 22 years as Prime Minister, would probably be arrested, or at least ejected, if he attempted to show up at a Liberal Party gathering today.

Not all of Mr. Scheer's caucus couldt bring themselves to endorse the abomination of Prime Minister Selfie's apology, as reported by Canadian Press, November 29, 2017:

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says he was sincere in his response to the apology for past state-sanctioned discrimination against LGBTQ people in Canada, but two of his caucus colleagues believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went too far.

Conservative MP Harold Albrecht says Trudeau went beyond apologizing for historical wrongs when he expressed his support for children discovering their sexual orientation or gender identity as young as the age of six.

Albrecht says that is why he did not join in the applause or rise to his feet along with the rest of the people who witnessed the keenly anticipated expression of regret in the House of Commons Tuesday.

His caucus colleague Ted Falk says he was firmly behind decision to issue an apology to those who have been wronged, but the fact that some of the statements went beyond that kept him from responding with as much enthusiasm as others.

There were many Conservative MPs who did not attend the apology.

Scheer says he delivered his response to the apology on behalf of the Conservative caucus and that he does not want to politicize the issue.

The current "Conservative" Party of Canada and its so-called leader provide ample evidence to support Vox Day's contention that conservatism has failed. Mr. Day is an American, but he says of American conservatives is true for those in Canada: they won't fight for what they say they believe in; they stand for nothing; and they've accomplished nothing.

As Joan Bryden of Canadian Press reported on November 28, 2017, even Pierre Trudeau wasn't politically correct enough to go around apologizing for any and all alleged historical wrongs:

OTTAWA — When it comes to politics, Justin Trudeau has demonstrated repeatedly that he’s not his father’s son — and he did it again Tuesday when he offered an official apology for members of the military and federal public servants whose careers were destroyed due to their sexual orientation.

Tuesday’s apology marked the second time in a less than a week and the third time since becoming prime minister that Trudeau has apologized on behalf of the government for a historic injustice — something his father, Pierre, steadfastly refused to do.

“Certainly, a number of people have highlighted, and I have this reflection as well, that my father might have had a different perspective on it than I do,” Trudeau acknowledged during a social policy conference Monday at the University of Toronto.

Trudeau, a gregarious people-person, has remarked before on the difference between his approach to politics and that of his aloof, cerebral father. And he offered that as an explanation for their different approaches to attempting to right historic wrongs.

“He came at it as an academic, as a constitutionalist. I come at it as a teacher, as someone who’s worked a lot in communities,” he said.

Back in 1984, Pierre Trudeau rebuffed pressure to apologize and compensate Japanese Canadians who were interned and stripped of their property during the Second World War. He questioned how his government could apologize for an event 40 years earlier in which it had not been involved.

“I do not think the purpose of a government is to right the past. It cannot rewrite history. It is our purpose to be just in our time,” he told the House of Commons.

Moreover, once a government starts down that path, he warned there’d be no end of apologies and compensation demanded.

“I’m not sure where we would stop in compensating. I know we’d have to go back a great length of time in our history and look at all the injustices.”

His Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney, eventually apologized in 1988 for the internment of Japanese Canadians. But that didn’t exactly open the floodgates, as Trudeau senior had feared.

Since then, there have been five more official apologies: for the execution of Canadian soldiers during the First World War, for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants, for the harm done to Indigenous Peoples from the residential school system, for turning away shipload of immigrants from India in 1914 and, last week, a separate apology for residential school survivors in Newfoundland and Labrador, who were left out of the earlier apology.

In addition to today’s recognition of the harm done by state-ordered discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Canadians, Trudeau has also signalled that he’ll apologize for the government’s decision in 1939 to turn away a ship full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

“The apologies for things past are important to make sure that we actually understand and know and share and don’t repeat those mistakes,” he said Monday.

“But apologies are also really important to be able to move forward in a healing way, that acknowledges the very real intergenerational impacts or impacts on an individual, around mental health, around self worth, around how you fit in to your community.”

Like his enthusiasm for taking part in gay pride parades, Trudeau said today’s apology is important for LGBTQ Canadians who still face “so much discrimination.” But it’s also useful, he added to “remind everyone else that we do have to change mindsets.”...

I hate to agree with Pierre Trudeau on anything, but I do on this; and unlike Justin, who seems to want everybody to like him, Pierre didn't seem to care if anybody liked him.

50 years ago: Anglican Church of Canada abandons its opposition to abortion

It may seem hard to believe now, but as recently as the 1960s, mainline Protestant churches still wielded a fair amount of influence in Canada, and their pronouncements merited considerable news coverage. In 1967, abortion was still illegal in Canada, but that was soon to change. Pierre Trudeau, the Justice Minister who initiated the omnibus bill that legalized abortion, homosexual acts, and lotteries, succeeded the retiring Lester Pearson as Prime Minister on April 20, 1968 (appropriately, Adolf Hitler's birthday), and the bill was passed by Parliament and became law a year later.

As reported by Canadian Press, December 15, 1967:

The Anglican Church of Canada departed Thursday from its long-standing opposition to abortion.

It told the Commons health committee abortion is justified, but only when there is a serious threat to the mother's life or health.

In a brief, the church states the termination of pregnancy may be desirable consideration when circumstances contribute to the impairment of a mother's health, reducing her care for her family.

It does not recognize overcrowding, insanitary housing and malnutrition as justifiable causes for abortion.

The brief was prepared by a special study committee of 24 persons composed of clergy, laymen and women, married and unmarried.

A number of the committee members headed by Rt. Rev. E.S. Reed, Bishop of Ottawa, and Rev. Maurice Wilkinson of Toronto, the church's general secretary for the council for social service, appeared before the Commons committee.

They made it clear that health was to be defined in its broadest sense--physical, mental and social well-being of the woman.
Each termination of pregnancy should be performed in an accredited hospital after a request passed by the hospital's committee on therapeutic abortion, the brief said.

The prevention of unwanted pregnancies by contraceptive means is to be preferred to other alternatives. A widespread program of family life education, including family planning, must accompany any change in the Criminal Code dealing with contraception.

In cases of alleged rape or incest, it should be the effect of the mother's total health rather than the circumstances of conception which provides a valid ground for ending the pregnancy.

Click on the link to see the Anglican Church of Canada's Brief on Abortion, December 14, 1967.

The most recent statement of policy on abortion from the Anglican Church of Canada that I could find was from November 3, 1989, where the church affirmed its position. I'm surprised it's not more liberal than it is; the church opposes early abortion on demand and for reasons of genetic defect, recognizes that abortion is the taking of human life, and says that it should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons. The Anglican Church also supports the right of health care professionals to refuse to participate in abortion, and supports legislation to ban commercial transactions in genetic material and abortion in order to harvest body parts.

However, the Anglican Church's 1989 position on abortion contains the old liberal "seamless garment" arguments that, in order to reduce the conditions that produce abortion, it's necessary to support a variety of feminist social programs such as pay equity, universal publicly-funded day care, more affordable housing, and programs and education to combat violence against women. The 1989 brief perpetuates the idea that it's poor rather than affluent women who are getting abortions.

According to the London Area Right to Life Association, nearly 4 million abortions have taken place in Canada since it was legalized in 1969. The mainline churches, including the Anglican Church of Canada, played a role in this devastating social development, and the change in their position on abortion was indicative of their increasing apostasy.