Tag Archives: supreme court

Maclean’s Story On Pro-life Momentum

Maclean’s has a new story that mentions We Need A Law and discusses the state of abortion affairs in Canada today. (Emphasis added.)

But Parliament fell short: its second and last bill died on a tied vote in the Senate in 1991, leaving Canada the only country in the democratic world without some restriction on abortion after the first trimester. To anti-abortionists, this exceptionalism is a mark of shame, and the main reason that, at last reliable count, there were 28.3 abortions in Canada for every 100 live births. To pro-choicers, it’s a badge of honour they’ve fought successfully to preserve, greeting any suggestion of restriction as a denial of a woman’s right to choose. As the years passed, politicians grew less inclined to challenge that notion. And many Canadians came to regard the matter as settled. Why, then, is it back on the public agenda?

Find out by reading the article.

A national conversation on fetal rights is long overdue. It is downright embarrassing that our Supreme Court’s Chief Justice felt she had to call a deceased infant “this, um, dead, um, whatever.”

Blood Money

by Daniel Gilman

Behind the veneer of pro-choice rhetoric is a very lucrative abortion industry. This money making industry is documented in a brand new documentary called Blood Money. This documentary has not yet been picked up by any distributors, ostensibly with the thought that few people care about these issues.

Click here to sign the petition and let them know that you care. And here’s the trailer:

Olivia’s Justice

by Dante De Luca

Once upon a time there was a girl named Olivia Talbot. You can read her story here, but I will give a little summary thereof for your ease of reading.

In short, she was a girl who lived in Edmonton. Like most people, she had her problems, and her particular problem was a drug addiction. However, after she became pregnant, she made great progress in putting this problem behind her. But then disaster struck: Jared Baker, a childhood friend and also a drug addict, stopped by one day with a gun and killed her. This was in 2005.

The interesting thing about this story is that Baker’s intended target was her unborn baby Lane; his first three shots were aimed at Olivia’s abdomen. Although Lane only received a scratch on his bum, the death of his mother was enough to kill him. The paramedics tried to resuscitate him, but failed; he died as well.

But of course, Baker was only found guilty of killing one person.

Despite the efforts of two bills in Parliament (both of which were partially inspired by Olivia’s death, and both of which never passed), the unborn are not legally protected in any way in Canada. Lane was treated as a non-entity in the legal and medical procedings. But Olivia’s mother Mary Talbot is continuing the movement to recognise the unborn in such situations. “I held that little boy. I saw two people in the casket, not one,” she said here. “For me, it’s black and white … I just can’t understand why they can’t see it that way.”

As Baker appeals to the Supreme Court on Friday (March 19), she has created a Facebook group entitled Olivia’s Justice to spread awareness of the issue and make a stand for the rights of unborn victims of crime. She requests that you join the group, but at least keep her and her family in your thoughts (and prayers), as well as Baker and his family, and all who are involved in these sorts of events. As Talbot says, “All women deserve to be protected from such evil but especially the ones who are carrying babies our future.”

PS on that sombre note, happy St Patrick’s Day, and remember St Patrick was pro-life too!

Newsflash: Women do not give birth to cats

by David Beking

In recent news, Stephen Harper has been preparing for the G8 summit coming up in the Muskokas and has made improving maternal and infant health in developing countries one of the topics for discussion. As one of the millenium development goals set by the UN, maternal and infant health is an important topic that needs to be addressed. In response to Harper’s plan, Michael Ignatieff – liberal opposition leader – stated that abortion rights must be included in any Canadian plan to improve infant and maternal health in the developing world. This came as a shock to many in the connection Ignatieff made between maternal/infant health and abortion. As Bishop Henry states in the first article below, “I thought it was pathetic for a political leader to suggest that abortion is somehow tied to the health of women and children”.

For the full story on Ignatieff’s position, click here.

In response to this statement from Ignatieff many religious leaders and journalists responded in opposition, most notably David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen. As stated below in his article Warren advocates that “Women do not give birth to cats” and that abortion can’t be considered anything but the slaughter of an innocent human beings. If maternal health is a concern, the method to deal with that health issue is not murder.

For the article, click here.

In Canada there exists no law about abortion.  The supreme court struck down the abortion laws in 1988 (R. v. Morgantaler) to allow for the protection of mothers in extremely rare circumstances where their life is at risk. However, only 5% of abortions preformed today are conducted for that reason. The other 95% of those aborted have been performed against section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom which states, among other rights,  that everyone has the right to life. If Ignatieff believes that we have been successful in improving maternal and infant care in Canada, abortion has not been one of the factors in this improvement. The issue of infant health will not be solved by ending their lives, but instead through public health improvements and better health care for pregnant women as proposed by Stephen Harper. As Warren puts it so well in his article “Killing a baby in no way improves its health”.

Here’s a letter to the editor responding to some of the issues.

Open Letter to Michael Ignatieff

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

I am writing in response to your call for Prime Minister Harper to include abortion as part of his maternal health initiative. I am a 22-year-old Canadian woman who would like to inform you that there is by no means a Canadian consensus in favour of abortion. It is scientifically indisputable that abortion is the act of terminating a human life. We should all be committed to improving conditions for women in Canada and around the world so that no mother is ever in such a desperate situation that she feels forced to abort her child.

The very year I was born, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our country’s abortion law and Parliament has since failed to pass any bill at all on abortion. Abortion on demand became legal and funded by taxpayer dollars through the ninth month of pregnancy in Canada not because that is the will of all Canadians but rather because of political cowardice. According to a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, only 20% of Canadians are aware of the current status-quo of abortion in Canada; when informed about existing regulations, only 30% endorsed them. This hardly amounts to a consensus.

Before you continue to campaign to export abortion, I would like to invite you to come hear what a politically engaged group of students has to say about including abortion as a component of women’s rights. This Friday, February 5, Ottawa Students for Life welcomes Andrea Mrozek, who will be speaking on the very topical subject of whether being pro-life is antithetical to being pro-woman. A question period will follow the talk.  The event takes place at 7 p.m. in Lamoureux Hall, room 122. (see https://ottawastudents4life.wordpress.com/)

I look forward to receiving a response and hope to see you there.


Marissa Poisson

UPDATE: also published in the Ottawa Citizen

Don’t say that too loud.

by Rebecca Richmond

In class this morning I was chatting with the guy who sits next to me about school and mentioned the fact that I was heavily involved with a club on campus. When asked what club, I replied, “Ottawa Students for Life. The pro-life club on campus.”

“Careful. Don’t say that too loud,” he warned with a smile.

Why? Because the class we were in was Feminist Theories, a third year Women’s Studies course I’m taking as an elective. I’ve spent a good portion of my year in classes related to gender issues and even when the class isn’t related, I tend to gear my essays towards life and women’s issues.

That conversation should not have taken place. It should be perfectly natural for me to broadcast my pro-life affiliations and beliefs and to not attract stares, angry glances, and cold or hostile words. But in any sort of course related to women’s issues, and in many other disciplines as well I’m sure, this isn’t the case.

Please believe me when I say that I don’t consider all women’s studies students to be intolerant or belligerent and there are, I’m sure, a few pro-lifers among them.

My point is that a pro-life position is generally considered antithetical to a pro-woman or feminist position. I, however, believe the opposite. I believe that being pro-life is to be pro-woman. I could articulate my viewpoint further, using plain speech or even feminist jargon but I’ll let you hear it from Andrea Mrozek, the founder of the popular blog prowomanprolife.org. (see the ad at the top of our blog).

I will say this, however. On January 28 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s abortion law as unconstitutional, leaving in its wake a vacuum of law. Now women across Canada are taught to believe that this is a simple procedure that won’t hurt or have long term consequences. This vacuum of law has rendered women vulnerable to the pain, the physical consequences, and the emotional bereavement that abortion can carry with it. It has made discrimination against fetuses for any reason legal, including gender (sex-selective abortion) and developmental (abortion of developmentally challenged and handicapped individuals).

It’s time for society to speak up. Women deserve better.