File 125

Frequently Asked Questions - Face the Children

Why the Project?

Politicians who support the dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment of the next generation of Canadians should have their views exposed so that they are publicly shamed for supporting the killing of pre-born Canadians.

For too long, politicians who spoke out in defense of pre-born children were faced with hostility from opposition parties and even their own; their pro-life voice came with a hefty political price tag.  Justice demands we reverse that—anyone who supports the age discrimination that is abortion will instead be faced with ramifications for that stated position. Those ramifications are simple—we will reveal what their actions and their words endorse and permit. Throwaway lines such as “abortion debate” or “the right to choose” have not been defined properly in public consciousness. That must change.

For too long, abortion has been just one of the many issues people vote on, but hasn’t been a central focus, even for many of those who believe that abortion is wrong. We cannot continue to support men and women who believe that the killing of pre-born Canadians is something they can support, endorse, or permit through inaction.

This is not just another policy issue—this is the most significant human rights violation our country has ever committed, and the death count continues to rise while pro-lifers are urged to be “patient.” This is not about pro-life activists and our patience; this is about pre-born children and their lives: We do not pay the price for waiting—they do—and that price is the ultimate one.

It is worth considering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote the following to people who agreed with his goal but not his methods of direct action:

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

Over 3 million pre-born children have been slaughtered in the past 44 years in Canada.  The dead victims cannot speak for themselves, or their unprotected peers.  How much longer must they wait for those of us who have voices to actually use them?

But isn’t CCBR educational instead of political?

We are indeed educational, and since we work on changing public opinion, we believe public policy should reflect that.  Currently public opinion supports legal protection for humans at 6 months of pregnancy, but abortion is allowed until 9 months, so CCBR is working to educate the public on this disparity.

CCBR often points out that throughout history, public opinion typically must change before public policy does. We now have a state of affairs in Canada where many abortion-related motions and laws which the Canadian public would and do support are suppressed or ignored—not because the public would not support them, but because many politicians do not want to engage in a debate they consider too controversial. This cowardice is unacceptable—and deadly for the pre-born.

Furthermore, this project is inherently educational in nature. First, it educates hundreds of thousands of Canadians on what the reality of the abortion procedure is, which is CCBR’s core mandate. Second, it educates Canadians on how their Member of Parliament has failed pre-born children. Lastly, but very importantly, many polls show us that huge numbers of Canadians are unaware that abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in Canada. This project is an opportunity for us to make hundreds of thousands of Canadians aware of that fact.

When society is educated, it is important to make clear what that education should lead to.  Education about how abortion is destroying the bodies of tiny babies must lead to behaviour changes for those who face unplanned pregnancies through avoiding abortion, but it must also lead to legal protections for those babies.  Some people will avoid having abortions simply because it’s illegal, which means that if abortion is legal, those same individuals would choose it.

And so, as Dr. King said, “The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.”  Likewise, laws banning abortion may not make people love pre-born children, but they can act to deter people from killing pre-born children.

We do not seek to educate simply for the sake of educating about the killing, but rather to entirely eradicate the killing.  As long as powerful institutions such as the government and medical bodies enable the killing, it leads the public to believe that abortion is acceptable.  Therefore, the political very much goes hand-in-hand with the educational when it comes to social reform.

But putting a politician’s face next to a dead baby? That’s just despicable.

How is it despicable?  The question is this: Are the postcards true?  Has the politician pictured failed pre-born children?  If so, the “despicable” thing is the utter disregard a leader in a democratic society has towards its youngest members.  The “despicable” thing is that the leader refuses to use his or her power to protect the powerless.  The “despicable” thing is that innocent blood is being shed in clinics across our land, funded with taxpayer dollars, and that such leaders turn a blind eye.

The test of whether this strategy is despicable or not, is to imagine if a recognized human rights violation replaced the abortion messaging—if a politician enabled the killing of Jews or Blacks, would it be outrageous to expose that?  Or outrageous that the politician does that?

If women were once again not considered persons under the law, and if domestic abuse were legal, and if 1 in 4 Canadian women were beaten by their partners, how would we feel about a politician’s refusal to open the debate about spousal abuse?  How would we feel about a politician’s stubborn commitment to defeat any legislation that would offer even the slightest protection to women?  How would we feel about a politician’s voting against a measure that would look at the evidence for the personhood of women?

Those who oppose abortion but also oppose our strategy of “Face the Children,” must do some serious soul-searching about whether they truly believe the pre-born are the humans they claim them to be.  We claim it—yes, of course.  But do we actually, truly believe it?  Our actions, and reactions, to this project will tell us the answer.  After all, would cries of “inappropriate” ever be aired if the mass murder victims were born?  From slavery to child labour to the Holocaust—pictures convey what words cannot.

Where is our sense of outrage at the daily bloodshed of children who are so vulnerable that their silent screams cannot be heard?  We would do well to consider the words of a Rwandan woman who lost most of her relatives to genocide: when she saw abortion imagery next to Rwandan genocide imagery, she pointed to the aborted baby photo and said, “That’s worse—because at least my family could try to run away.”

Postcards make people upset and don’t provide dialogue/education.

First, images are education.  Second, the backside of the postcards explain the image-heavy front.  Third, our website is provided, which has a wealth of pro-life argumentation, including in our Pro-Life Classroom (  Fourth, people are dialoguing about it—through social media, traditional media, and to neighbors, colleagues, family, and friends.  What else has opened the abortion debate in Canada like this has done in just its opening days?

Regarding people getting upset, it’s important to remember history: liked reformers were rarely effective, and effective reformers were rarely liked.  CCBR has written extensively on the subject of social reformers facing hostility so those concerned about this topic are encouraged to read the following:

Finally, social reformers like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Alice Paul, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce all successfully made an impact on public opinion and public policy, but though we celebrate them as heroes today, they were despised, ridiculed, and persecuted when they lived.

What do you say about the claim that if the Conservatives lose, it will get worse? And that you’re contributing to that?

We aren’t targeting the Conservatives.  We are targeting MPs who don’t protect pre-born children.  No MP should be in power who supports the killing of the youngest of our kind.  By circulating these images, we are alerting people to what those in power support.  We are also alerting those in power that actions have consequences and that they cannot continue to enable Canada’s greatest human rights violation without being held accountable. If they fail pre-born children, their betrayal of the weak and vulnerable will be exposed so that they either change their behaviour, or so that they lose the power they are not fit to hold.  If an MP loses power because the truth of their words was made known, that loss will not be because of us, but because he or she held such a barbaric view.

Certainly there are many Conservative Members of Parliament that deserve our heartiest support for their principled stand on pre-born human rights. However, no one is doing more to suppress the abortion debate right now than Stephen Harper, and that fact cannot be ignored.

This is going to impede “behind-the-scenes” work; it paints all pro-lifers with the same brush and makes us all look bad.

Behind-the-scenes work is important.  But how does this campaign harm that?  How is it problematic to expose human rights violators for being human rights violators?  What if an MP were enabling human trafficking?  Wouldn’t we expose that?  Why not this?

If MPs don’t want their picture next to a dead baby, it’s very simple: Don’t make dead babies—don’t make decisions or statements, act, or don’t act, in a way that fails pre-born children who desperately need you.

For too long, pro-lifers, whether politicians or the general public, have been on the defensive.  They’ve been forced to defend why they’re pro-life, as though they’re doing something wrong.  It’s time to get on the offensive—and force those who support the killing of children to explain that barbaric view.  If this seems to “rock the boat” on Parliament Hill, so be it.  Rather than pro-lifers shrink away from defending the message, it should be seized as a great opportunity for dialogue and debate—debate that was likely not happening in the context of what, precisely, abortion does.  Rather than a pro-lifer distancing herself from the controversy, when someone expresses concern the question should be asked, “Why?  What don’t you like about it?  And why is that?”  Besides questions, when analogies are made to other human rights violations, as the questions above do, a strong case can be made for this approach.

Let’s not forget history—the old Abortion Caravan of 1970 involved “furious women,” as they called themselves, rocking the boat and ultimately getting what they wanted.  Canada had limited access to abortion when these loud, determined, persistent women took to the streets.  In the contest of wills, their wills were strong—and their wills won. 

How is the pro-life will these days?  Are we as determined to save pre-born children as abortion advocates are to kill them?  Way, way too often pro-lifers retreat and run scared. The only people who should be scared are those who support the killing of children.  The pictures prove that.

What do you hope to accomplish?

We aim to make a pro-life Canada—both amongst the public as well as amongst politicians.  The history of successful social reform movements and our own experience shows that images are a powerful tool to change peoples’ feelings, thinking, and behaviour.  Images are a key tool to making abortion unthinkable.

Further, we hope to expose the extremism of these politicians’ views to their constituents.  We will show the people what their elected representatives’ action, or inaction, is enabling.  The images of aborted children send a clear message to people of conscience that only leaders who will protect the most vulnerable in Canadian society should be worthy of election.

These postcards enable us to reach huge numbers of the Canadian public with important information that many of them do not yet possess.

What does the campaign involve?

Each week, for five weeks, we will release a postcard that exposes a politician’s failure towards pre-born children (based on their statements and/or voting record) and show their image alongside images of the aborted.  We will then spend the summer circulating those postcards to every home in that politician’s riding.  We will be circulating 250,000 postcards over the next 4 months.

Is public opinion really inconsistent with the status quo of accepting abortion on demand?

Yes.  A 2013 Environics Poll found 60% of Canadians say human life should receive legal protection by the sixth month of pregnancy.  A 2012 poll commissioned by Postmedia News and Global TV, 60% of Canadians support introducing a law that limits abortion, such as during the last trimester.

Many would say the pro-life movement is a minority voice. How would you respond?

Yes, but we are a minority voice that matters.  We are a large constituency of every MP that we will be targeting.  Furthermore, we are a minority that is growing into a majority—we already have in these areas:

  • An overwhelming majority of Canadians support legal protection for pre-born humans at 6 months of pregnancy. 
  • Further, over 90% of Canadians are opposed to sex-selective abortion.
Will you be doing anything else besides postcards?

We will be continuing with our other projects (the Reproductive “Choice” Campaign and “Choice” Chain) in the ridings as well.

Who else will you be targeting?

We do not release the politicians who will face the children until the day-of. 

Last year we made a Face the Children video exposing the words of MPs Irene Mathyssen and Niki Ashton, which can be viewed here:

Will this go beyond the five politicians you plan to target this summer?

Yes.  If someone fails the children, they will face the children.