As we enter 2018, most people are making New Year’s Resolutions. For some, it’ll be eating healthier, or going to the gym, or reading more. For others, it will be financial goals or places to travel. At the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, we’d like to ask that you add one more resolution to your list: Stand up for pre-born children in whatever way you can.
Toronto, ON. Earlier this year the Trudeau government announced that organizations with pro-life views would not be eligible for grant funding from the Canada Summer Jobs program, saying it would find a mechanism to punish citizens unless they agreed with the government’s social ideologies. This announcement was followed by denying the applications of a number of pro-life organizations on the false basis of “budget” concerns.
Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Jonathon Van Maren’s recent book Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, which can be purchased here.
Your signs just make people angry. How is that going to achieve your goal?
Our friends over at the pro-life political organization Right Now have released their suggested ballot rankings for the Saskatchewan Leadership Race (to replace outgoing leader Brad Wall), and much to the chagrin of the media, multiple candidates have stepped forward to affirm that they are pro-life and indicated their support for common-sense pro-life legislation. Despite decades of abortion rights activists insisting that the abortion debate is closed, it would seem that such declarations were wishful thinking.
Some time ago after a pro-life presentation, I swung by the Macs down the street from my house with a friend. My friend asked the cashier, a middle-aged Indian fellow, what he thought about abortion. Pro-choice, was the answer. It’s the woman’s decision at the end of the day.
A week or so later, I took one of our “Choice” cards, which depict a first trimester aborted fetus, and went back to the Macs.
There’s been a lot of commentary around the recent announcement by Ontario’s Liberal attorney general that legislation creating “bubble zones” around the province’s abortion clinics will soon be tabled. The Liberals are claiming, with utmost solemnity, that this restriction of free speech is necessary due to the “harassment” and “abuse” women are suffering while going to procure abortions. Even though the attorney general framed his case at a press release in the most dramatic terms, the only alleged example he could come up with was a man spitting on someone outside an abortion clinic.
There are moments in the lives of men and women that, in retrospect, shift the course of human history in ways too enormous and too wonderful to even imagine at the time. In those moments, often against their will, their hearts are set ablaze for something much bigger than themselves. One of those moments was in the year 1785, when a twenty-five-year old aspiring English clergyman named Thomas Clarkson decided to enter an essay competition.
Pro-lifers uncomfortable with most forms of educational outreach often pinpoint their discomfort very specifically on one thing: Abortion victim photography makes people upset. There are a variety of responses to this, of course—images of abortion victims should make us upset, because little human beings are being physically torn limb from limb. But often, I point out the fact that regardless of whether we choose to use photographs of abortion victims in our outreach, people will always get upset, and they will always accuse pro-lifers of being extreme.
The last time cabinet minister Maryam Monsef made the news, the occasion was her bungled handling of the Liberals’ short-lived plan to enact electoral reform. Now, Monsef has appeared in headlines across the country saying that denying someone access to the violence of abortion is itself violence. From Maclean’s:
Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef says denying access to the full range of reproductive services — including abortion — is a form of violence against women.
It is common knowledge in the pro-life movement that the “pro-choice” media is, for the most part, “pro-abortion.” This is not an attempt to demonize their motives, but simply the only rational conclusion that observation can produce. Consistently, the media and their abortion industry allies portray legislation that would give women more information—informed consent, information concerning the baby’s development in the womb, ultrasounds—as “anti-choice,” when in in fact these policies simply allow women to make their irreversible, permanent decision with more facts.