502 Live birth abortions from 2014 to 2018

by Patricia Maloney

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2020/06/502-livebirth-abortions-in-canada-from.html Tuesday, June 30, 2020By Patricia Maloney

Live birth abortions from Statistics Canada: Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn [P96.4]

I’ve reported on these Stats Canada’s livebirth abortions, and CIHI’s livebirth abortions, many times before.

Statistics Canada’s and the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) livebirth abortion numbers are never the same. I’ve never been able to get an answer as to why their numbers are always different.

We still don’t know why these late term abortions result in babies born alive. We still don’t know what happens to these little souls when it happens. We do know that they died because they are reported as a death by Stats Canada. Are these tiny humans held and comforted as they wait to die? Are they thrown into the garbage? How much do they suffer? Did anyone ask them what they wanted?

These livebirth abortions are shameful. They are a tragedy. And they continue to happen year after year.






Posted in Abortion, Abortion Stats, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dr. Catherine Frazee – Justice Committee Parliamentary Hearing -Bill C-7 begs the question, why persons with disabilities?

Sunday, November 15, 2020

Catherine Frazee, Professor Emerita, Ryerson University School of Disability Studies.
I speak today from the Mi’kma’ki the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people. I am a settler here bound by treaties of peace and friendship, and mindful that we are, all of us, treaty people.

Madame Chair, I am sorry for any discomfort that my words may trigger. But with so little time I must speak frankly and without reserve.

Bill C-7 begs the question, why us, why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered, or painful, or in decline? 

Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life?

Everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, a shot gun carried out into the woods?

Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

Surely the answer rises up in all of our throats. That’s not who we are!

We dial 911. We pull you back from the ledge. And yes, we restrain you in your moment of crisis, autonomy be damned.

We will get to the heart of the problem that drove you out into the woods. And we will beckon you back toward a life that is bearable, unless your suffering is medical or disability-related.

Then and only then there will be a special pathway to assisted death.

Universality is the bedrock of our healthcare commitments.

Why then does Bill C-7 depart so radically, dropping the threshold for MAID for one social group to bear the trauma of suicide at catastrophic rates, but not for others who suffer and die before their time.

What is it about disability that makes this okay?

Why such breathless confidence that Bill C-7 will bring no harm to disability communities?

Honestly, I do not know.

But as we marshal our evidence for the legal challenges that will follow if this Bill is passed, this is what we hear in reply.

Some say that the suffering of a disabling medical condition is unlike other suffering, somehow more cruel than the overwhelming pain of any healthy, non-disabled person who turns to premature death by suicide. But there is no evidence to support this.

Some say that the suffering of disability defies all hope, as it did, they claim for Jean Truchon. But the deprivations of institutional life that choked out his will to live were not an inevitable consequence of disability. Did we learn nothing from Archie Rolland’s harrowing struggle and his final cri de coeur before assisted death? “It’s not the ALS that’s killing me,” he said.

Some say that the suffering of disabling conditions falls in the domain of medicine. But the agonizing quest of Sean Tagert teaches us otherwise. Let’s not forget, he called the bureaucratic denials of needed care a death sentence, just days before his assisted death.

Some will fall back on the mantra of choice. They say that not everyone wants to live that way. But not everyone wants to live with the indignities of poverty, either. No one wants to live under threat of racial, or gendered, or colonial violence. No one wants to live hungry, incarcerated, abject, or alone.

Madame Chair, will our lawmakers carve out other shortcuts to assisted death for those who do live in such conditions? Or will you rise to the defence of human rights?

If the latter, I respectfully urge that you start with us, for our equality is, right now, on the line.

Thank you.
You can watch other videos at maid2mad.ca. This post published from the Euthanasia prevention Coalition blog.
Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Euthanasia – Panacea or Pandora’s Box?

We learned from Health Canada’s  First Annual Report on Maid (Euthanasia) deaths  released in July that 13.7% of Canadians who died by euthanasia gave isolation or loneliness as one of their reasons for requesting euthanasia.  How sad that their feelings of loneliness could not be eased so that perhaps these individuals felt that they mattered to someone.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New website about the abortion pill reversal process launched by Alliance for Life Ontario

Launch of AbortionPillReversal.ca

Alliance for Life Ontario is pleased to announce the launch of its latest educational website, “AbortionPillReversal.ca” and also the beginning of the 2020 Reaching Minds Through Media Social Media Campaign.

[Every pro-life person or organization] “each of us is bound by God’s laws to respect the dignity of each human being from God’s creation until his death.”

~ Judy Brown


We are very happy to have completed such an essential website which will inform the public of little known facts regarding the abortion pill reversal procedure and how it can offer women a Second Chance to hold their little ones in their arms, even after taking the abortion pill (Mifepristone), the “first step” of the Mifegymiso abortion protocol. 

We know that being unexpectedly pregnant can be scary and confusing, but when we feel scared and confused it is no time to be making such a monumental and tragic decision as undergoing a chemical abortion. Our message to these women young and not so young is, “Don’t let your fear decide yours or your baby’s future”. If a young woman has taken the first pill already, she can call 1 888 612 3960 within 24-72 hours or visit the Live Chat on the abortionpillreversal.ca site. If she has undergone the whole procedure, she can still call the 1 888 line or our pregnancy help line at 1 866 966 6411 or any of the groups listed on our page offering post-abortion help or again she can visit the Live Chat port on the site.

We have endeavoured through written word and video to assure the women visiting our site who are thinking of taking Mifegymiso, have started the process or sadly completed it, that there is help for them wherever they are in this abortion process. We have provided factual information:

  • Regarding the abortion pill process itself
  • The harm that many Canadian women and others have suffered after undergoing a chemical abortion
  • We have questioned whether women considering a chemical abortion are receiving full information on the current Consent form or Patient Medical Information sheet regarding Mifegymiso
  • The abortion pill reversal process
  • Referenced proof that the abortion pill reversal procedure is a success currently 64%-68% of the time
  • Personal testimony from women who have undergone abortion pill reversal
  • Pregnancy support contact information
  • Post abortion help contact information
  • Abortion Pill Reversal contact information
  • A LiveChat portal on the abortion pill reversal site

Informative videos with medical doctors who have practiced the abortion pill reversal technique .


Posted in Abortion Pill reversal process | Leave a comment

Health Canada released first annual euthanasia (medical assistance in dying) report

The first annual report of statistical information concerning euthanasia (MAID) was released in July by Health Canada.  Its data comes from Canada’s federal monitoring and reporting regime which came into effect in November 2018. Previously, the department had compiled and released four interim reports.

This latest report does not address possible abuses of the law. The independent report from Quebec’s Commission sur les soins de fin de vie dated September 2019 found that at least 13 euthanasia deaths in the province did not meet all legal requirements.

Health Canada says that “with respect to oversight, some jurisdictions such as, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia have implemented review committees to ensure MAID is being provided in accordance with federal and provincial rules. In Ontario, all MAID deaths are reported to the Chief Coroner’s office who is also responsible for oversight.”

It would be interesting to know if the review committee in British Columbia looked into the case of Alan Nichols who died by euthanasia at Chilliwack General Hospital in July 2019. His family members were stunned that Alan was approved for euthanasia. Mr. Nichols had a history of chronic depression but was not sick or dying. His brother and sister were unsuccessful in their efforts to stop his death by euthanasia. 

Health Canada calls attention to media reports concerning faith based institutions and palliative care centres who refuse to allow euthanasia assessments or its provision in their facilities. We are told that “This has resulted in patients being required to transfer to another facility if they wish to receive the procedure.”  Yet, transfers to another facility for surgeries, or procedures are routine matters in health care.  Why is it that media reports concerning the coercion of hospices are not mentioned? The Ministry of Health for British Columbia is threatening to pull funding from the Delta Hospice Society because it will not allow euthanasia to take place on its centre’s premises.  The Delta  Hospice Society continues its legal battle. According to a January 2020 North Bay Nugget report, the Serenity hospice in North Bay was  being coerced by four local physicians who want the hospice to offer euthanasia on site. Health Canada also fails to mention media reports regarding cases of patients with disabilities who experienced pressure in the direction of euthanasia, Roger Foley and Candice Lewis for example.

Health Canada does provide however accounts from practitioners of their patients’ death by euthanasia: “Patient who passed away in her garden, sitting in her favourite chair, surrounded by friends and family. Balloons were released before her death (to help guide her on her journey…)She reportedly told her daughter that she would not have been able to manage another week.” 

The information provided in Health Canada’s latest report consists of data collected from physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists. We know only what the practitioner causing the death, reports to the designated provincial or territorial body or directly to Health Canada.

5,631 ‘assisted deaths’ were reported for 2019. The overwhelming majority were euthanasia cases done by lethal injection by a practitioner.  There were fewer than 7 cases of assisted suicide where the individual self administers the lethal dose. The total number of euthanasia (MAID) deaths reported since the passage of the federal law in June 2016 until the end of December 2019 is 13,946. The 2019 numbers represent a 26.1% increase over 2018 numbers. 

Euthanasia (MAID) deaths represent 2% of all deaths in Canada in 2019. In British Columbia, euthanasia deaths are 3.3% of all deaths and in Quebec, 2.4% of all deaths.

Those who are 56 years of age and older account for 93.4% of euthanasia deaths. 

The report tells us that there were 1,271 “unique practitioners” providing euthanasia in 2019. 1,196 are physicians and 75 are nurse practitioners. Family physicians make up 65% of those willing to give lethal injections, palliative care medicine specialists (9.1%), anesthesiologists (5%) and psychiatrists (1.2%). 

  • 617 practitioners (48.5%) provided one euthanasia procedure.
  • 528 practitioners (41.5%) provided the procedure 2 to 9 times.
  • 126 practitioners (9.9%) provided the procedure more than 10 times during the year.

According to practitioners, loss of autonomy was the primary reason given as cause of suffering by patients.

Loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities: 82.1%

Loss of ability to perform activities of daily living; 78.1%

Inadequate control of symptoms other than pain ( or concern about it): 56.4%

Inadequate control of pain or concern about it: 53.9%

Loss of dignity: 53.3%

Perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers: 34.0%

Loss of control of bodily functions: 31.9%

Isolation or loneliness: 13.7%

7,336 written requests were reported in 2019.   Of these, 5,389 (73% ) resulted in euthanasia.

For 1,947 requests, euthanasia was not administered for the following reasons: in 1,113 cases the patients died before receiving a lethal injection. In 571 cases, the patients were considered ineligible. In 263 cases, the patients withdrew their requests.

For the 7.8% determined to be ineligible for euthanasia, the reasons given were:

  • A lack of capacity to make medical decisions: 32.2% of cases. 
  • The person’s natural death was not reasonably foreseeable: 27.8% of cases
  • The person was not considered to be in a state of irreversible decline in capacity: 23.5% of cases.

A physician or nurse practitioner must report all written requests for euthanasia. As well, they must report the age, sex, postal code, assessment of the request, eligibility of the person and whether two practitioners approved the eligibility and whether there was a 10 day reflection period between the time of the request and the actual procedure being done.

In 65.7% of cases, the 10 day requirement was met. In 34.3% of cases, the 10 day  reflection period was shortened with 84.4% of practitioners giving “imminent loss of the patient’s capacity to consent as the primary reason, with imminent death cited in 45.4% of these cases.”

For all patients receiving euthanasia, the practitioner must report if the patient received palliative care and or disability supports services if these were needed.

Cancer was the medical condition most associated with euthanasia at 67.2% of cases.

Respiratory conditions accounted for 10.8% of euthanasia deaths. Neurological  conditions followed at 10.4% of cases and cardiovascular at 10.1% of cases.  At 6.1% of cases, a category called Other Condition is described as including “a range of conditions, with frailty commonly cited.”

Administration of euthanasia occurred  primarily in hospital or at home.  36.3 % in hospital (excluding palliative care beds) and in the patient’s private residence(35.2%). 20.6% took place in a palliative care unit. 6.9% occurred in a residential care setting.

Health Canada states that “It should be noted that there is nothing in the federal MAID legislation that compels a practitioner to provide or assist in providing MAID.” We would point out that there is nothing in the federal legislation that provides specific conscience rights protection for physicians, nurses and other health practitioners. In fact, a p0licy of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, explicitly requires physicians to make referrals for euthanasia in spite of their conscientious objection to the practice. These health professionals continue to ask for legislation to provide specific protection rights.





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Canada’s health care savings is attributed to euthanasia

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

by Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Soon after Canada legalized euthanasia, the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) published a study by Aaron J. Trachtenberg MD DPhil, and Braden Manns MD MSc titled: Cost analysis of medical assistance in dying,

The researchers suggested that the Canadian healthcare system will save between 34.7 and 138.8 million dollars per year, depending on the number of euthanasia deaths. Canada has a universal healthcare system, whereby the financial cost of healthcare is primarily covered by the government.

At the time I stated that the social pressure to save money will become the ultimate form of social responsibility. People will be socially pressured to die.
“How dare you choose to live. You are costing society money.”
Today, Katie Dangerfield reported for Global News that:
Since Canada’s law on medical assistance in dying came into effect more than four years ago, health-care costs have dropped millions of dollars, according to a Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report released Tuesday.

The report on assisted dying said since becoming legal on June 17, 2016, Canada’s health-care costs have dropped $86.9 million.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer also projected that Bill C-7, the bill to expand Canada’s euthanasia law, will lead to more euthanasia deaths per year and more healthcare savings. Dangerfield reported:
The budget office estimates the legislation would mean an additional 1,164 medically assisted deaths in Canada in 2021, on top of the 6,465 deaths expected under the current regime.

Provincial health budgets would see a savings of $149 million next year if the numbers hold true, largely from declines in spending on end-of-life care.
Sadly, some people will point to the cost savings as a positive reason to promote euthanasia. 


It appears that euthanasia is not about “choice” or “autonomy” but rather killing people at the most vulnerable time of life.

There has now been approximately 19,000 euthanasia deaths in Canada.


Posted in Euthanasia, Medical assistance in dying (MAID) | Leave a comment

Did Nobel laureate Robert Edwards get his gong for enabling eugenics?


If the “cancel culture” is gunning for eugenicists, there are more than enough candidates. One of the most prominent is Robert Edwards, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2010 for developing in vitro fertilisation.

As Gina Maranto, a writer for the Biopolitical Times, reminds readers, he was a dyed-in-the-wool eugenicist:

Edwards was a long-time member and trustee of the UK’s Eugenics Society and then, under its new name, the Galton Society, as Osagie Obasogie detailed in Scientific American in 2013. In a December 1970 article in the same publication, Edwards and [Ruth] Fowler [his wife] foresaw and embraced the possibility that IVF would enable the selection of embryos according to their genetic characteristics, including “choosing male or female blastocysts.”

They also envisioned other manipulations of embryos, writing that while such experiments would present “challenges to a number of established social and ethical concepts,” they would bring great rewards. Edwards implicitly acknowledged the eugenical implications of his work in 1999 when he said, “Soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.” 

Edwards was not just concerned with avoiding grave disability. Eugenics was for him an opportunity to raise the skill level in our society: “any [scientific] method of potential value in raising human standards should be considered, and [human reproductive] cloning might contribute towards this end by providing pools of talent”, he said in 1974.

In 2003 he told London’s Times: “[IVF] was a fantastic achievement, but it was about more than infertility. It was also about issues like stem cells and the ethics of human conception. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.” And what he discovered was that “it was us”.

The arrogance of this boast suggests that Edwards was not just aware of the eugenicist possibility of IVF; for him this was its ultimate purpose. Fortunately for his memory, no one has erected a statue of him. 

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge 

First published at Bioedge:https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/did-nobel-laureate-robert-edwards-get-his-gong-for-enabling-eugenics/13496

Reposted with permission.

Posted in In-vitro fertilization, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Alert from a growing number of physicians


For Immediate Release

Alert from a growing number of Canadian physicians

“We are being bullied to participate in Medical Assistance in Dying”

Montréal, March 9, 2020 – The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia has received reports that unwilling physicians are being pressured and bullied to participate in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID): euphemism for euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Fearing reprisals, physicians have asked that no information that could identify them be disclosed.

The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.

“The anxiety, fear, and sadness surrounding my work bled into my family life, and I ultimately felt that I could not manage practicing palliative care
 at this stage of my life.”
(Former palliative care physician, March 2020)

In different locations across Canada over the last months to weeks there has been a change in certain hospital MAID policies. The change seems intended to provoke crisis or confrontation: to force objecting physicians to facilitate MAID, or to have to refuse — and face contrived allegations of “obstructing access.”  Reports consistently focus on the MAID providers refusing to accept full responsibility for the death of the patient and forcing other physicians to share responsibility for the death. If the physician asks to withdraw from care and allow the MAID provider to take over as before, the MAID provider resists assuming the natural pattern of care.

The reports we are hearing from distressed physicians describe deliberate disruption of arrangements that were previously working satisfactorily and that had permitted patients to have access to MAID while still allowing for conscience objectors to not be involved in facilitating the patient’s death. This bullying and betrayal of collegial relationships can poison practice environments and compromise patient care. Such behavior should not be tolerated by health care administrators in Canada.

Canadian physicians having similar stories of bullying are encouraged to contact the Physicians’ Alliance by email: info@collectifmedecins.org.

Charmine Francis


Canadian Medical Protective Association: Most Responsible Physician: A key link in the coordination of care. 

Lauren Vogel.  Culture of bullying in medicine starts at the top. 
Canadian Medical Association Journal (December, 2018

Camille Bains.  Systemic change needed to address suicide among physicians in Canada, doctors say. 
CBC News/Canadian Press (May, 2019)

Gabrielle Horne.  Physician, heal thyself: the potential crisis of conscience in Canadian medicine.  What if your faith in doctors having conscience was shaken? 
Globe and Mail (May, 2019

Posted in Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Witnesses to abortion reveal its horrors



By Sarah Terzo

Sometimes authors of magazines are allowed to witness abortions in the course of writing articles. Sometimes medical students who never had an opinion on abortion come to grips with the procedure after viewing one. People who observe abortion procedures or abortion remains usually come away with little doubt that abortion is killing a human being.

Author Verlyn Klinkenborg of Harper’s Magazine visited an abortion clinic for a 1995 article. After viewing the remains of an abortion at ten weeks, he wrote the following (1):

I felt a profound and unmistakable kinship with the foot and hand in the tray, a kinship so strong it was like the rolling of the sea under my feet[.] … I was surprised by my own sadness, by the sense of loss that I felt[.] … I found it so much easier to be moved by the sight of the disembodied hand the size of a question mark gleaming under fluorescent lights. … In that tiny, naked hand there was the imputation of innocence.

Author Sue Hertz spent a year observing in a busy abortion clinic. She saw the remains of several abortions (2):

It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than a sack of blood and globs of tissue – as many pro-choice activists did- if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC) as they were known in medical circles. But the nurses, medical assistants, and doctors who worked inside procedure rooms … knew that an eleven-week-old POC harbored tiny arms and legs and feet with toes. At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny nails. Although the fetal head was too small at this stage to withstand the evacuation machine’s suction, pieces of face- a nose and mouth, or a black eye…were sometimes found in the aftermath[.] … Later abortions spawned even more gruesome fetal remains … the head did not come out whole during the evacuation, but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact. The hand of a second trimester fetus, as a Preterm doctor described it, seemed big enough to shake.

A writer from the Wisconsin State Journal shadowed an abortionist as he performed abortions in his clinic. He says (3):

Christensen performed two abortions that day on women who were at the end of the first trimester. In each case, the tissue was suctioned into a large glass jar, filling the bottom half inch.

Christensen later poured it into a straining basin and examined it “to make sure we removed all of it.”

At one point, he picked up a tiny foot and placed it against a ruler. “Thirteen millimeters,” he announced, “which is consistent with 12 weeks of actual pregnancy.”

Later he held a tiny head. Its brain tissue will be sent to the National Institutes of Health for research on brain tumors.

Peter Korn, who wrote a book about the ironically named abortion clinic “Lovejoy,” describes an abortion this way (4):

Still holding the forceps, Lane [the doctor] begins pulling, tearing apart the fetus. His first three tugs yield indistinguishable tissue. The fourth brings out a more solid mass. … Tiny hands and feet, extracted next, are the most recognizable. The head is less so. The pieces of the fetus and the placenta are placed by Lane on a surgical tray at his side.

Pro-choice author Magda Denes witnessed abortions while writing her book In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death Inside an Abortion Hospital. She was disturbed by seeing the intact body of a baby aborted in the second trimester (5):

I remove with one hand the lid of a bucket … I look inside the bucket in front of me. There is a small naked person there floating in a bloody liquid- plainly the tragic victim of a drowning accident. But then perhaps this was no accident, because the body is purple with bruises and the face has the agonized tautness of one forced to die too soon. Death overtakes me in a rush of madness … I have seen this before. The face of a Russian soldier, lying on a frozen snow covered hill, stiff with death and cold. … A death factory is the same anywhere, and the agony of early death is the same anywhere.

B.D. Colen, a reporter for Newsday, witnessed a second-trimester D&E abortion (5). A D&E is the standard second-trimester abortion and is performed over 300 times a day:

After dilating, or opening, the cervix, the physician used a curette, the gynecological version of a sharpened spoon, to cut the fetus into pieces he would then remove with forceps. A large petri dish sat on an instrument stand to the right of the girl’s feet, and most of the red material in the dish was unrecognizable. But from time to time during the procedure the physician would tap his forceps on the edge of the dish – and into the muck would drop a foot, or a hand, or a piece of rib cage[.]

Having seen what I saw, I cannot for a moment abide the disingenuousness of those who argue that a fetus is not human, or those who convince themselves that abortion is not killing[.]

An author from Salon Magazine describes two abortions. One was a D&E, the other a partial birth abortion, a procedure that is now illegal due to the efforts of pro-lifers. He says of the D&E (6):

Time after time, the resident plunged the Bierer [forceps] into the woman’s womb, removing a leg, then an arm, then the liver, then the placenta, which the doctor ranted about, because this can make the fetal head extraction more difficult. The last step that I saw was the collapse of the skull and the removal of the brain matter.

A former medical student writes the following (11 weeks, so a dilatation and suction) (7):

The doctor continued talking in his disinterested monotone, and I watched as the contents of the woman’s womb came through a suctioning device and into a stainless-steel pail sitting at his feet. I stepped back and wiped the perspiration from my brow. “This is kind of gruesome,” I said. “Was there some special reason she didn’t want to have her baby?”

“She wanted an abortion,” the nurse replied, “and we’re required by law to do what she wants.”

The doctor had been listening to our conversation. As he stood up, he said, “At this point in the pregnancy, the products of conception aren’t much.” I knew the emphasis on “products of conception” was for my benefit.

Is that what you have in that pail? I thought. Does that make it easier for you? I did not have the courage to put into words what I was thinking. I’ve always regretted that.

I stepped forward and peered into the pail. This time I broke out in a cold sweat. Dear Jesus! I thought. I just saw someone murdered! And I just stood and watched! Why did I come down here? How will I ever put this out of my mind?

“Are you OK?” the voice of the nurse brought me back.

“I’m sorry,” I smiled weakly. “I just never realized what it was like.

Do you assist with these all the time?”

“More than I care to admit,” the nurse said. “Actually, I can handle one, but when they start to come back for the second or third time, it really gets to me.”

As I left the operating room, I shook my head in an attempt to get the horrible vision out of my head. I couldn’t. It was there; it would always be there: a little hand…a little rib cage.

The author goes on to describe nightmares he had about the abortion. Now he is a pro-life activist.

These men and women have witnessed the horror of abortion firsthand, and none of them emerged from the experience the same.

Some, like the medical student, became pro-life. Others, like Magda Denes, were able to rationalize their experience and remain pro-choice – but they would always understand the reality behind the rhetoric.

The vast majority of us have never seen an abortion – but we can gain wisdom from those who have. Abortion is a terrible, violent procedure that kills a baby. No amount of sugar-coating can banish that reality. Those of us in the pro-life movement must continue on, knowing we are fighting a battle against the most important human rights injustice of our time.

  1. “Violent Certainties” Harper’s Magazine January 1995 p 47
  2. Sue Hertz Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion’s Front Line (New York: Prentice Hill Press, 1991) p 104
  3. “Women Need Control over Birth Choice, Physician Says” Wisconsin State Journal. March 4, 2001. Quoted by Life Dynamics.
  4. Peter Korn Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996) pgs 235-236
  5. B.D. Colen “A High, But Necessary, Toll” Newsday May 12, 1992
  6. Margaret A. Woodbury, “A Doctor’s Right to Choose” Salon Magazine July 24, 2002
  7. Don Haines “The Day I Became Pro-Life” Oct. 30, 2002

Editor’s note. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life Liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry.

Reposted with permission.

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

Canadian Psychiatrists: It’s okay to euthanize mentally ill patients

lifenews.com/2020/03/17/canadian-psychiatrists-its-okay-to-euthanize-mentally-ill-patients/International Wesley Smith Mar 17, 2020 | 6:58PM Ottawa, Canada

Dedicated psychiatrists are often the only defense between patients with serious mental illness and suicide. But legalizing euthanasia shifts thinking 180 degrees because suicide has been redefined as health care and a right. Hence, protections — such as barring administered death to the mentally ill — soon come to be seen as obstacles.

That has happened in Canada, where the government is erasing its weak provision that death must be “reasonably foreseeable” requirement to qualify for killing. Once that provision is repealed, psychiatric conditions diagnosed “irremediable” could qualify for death. Tor read more https:https://www.lifenews.com/2020/03/17/canadian-psychiatrists-its-okay-to-euthanize-mentally-ill-patients/

Posted in Euthanasia, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment