Unethical Study Manufactures Results



Unethical Study Manufactures Results
December 12, 2019

by Bradley Mattes 

The chemical abortion pill is growing in use and may soon outpace surgical abortion. This evolving trend demonstrates why the Abortion Pill Reversal network of medical professionals is vital to saving babies and protecting their mothers.

A so-called study was underway to examine the effectiveness of progesterone to reverse a chemical abortion when a mother changed her mind. However, critics say its unspoken goal was to actually undermine the progesterone protocol. But the process backfired and further underscored the need for added protections for women subjected to chemical abortion.

The study’s credibility was suspect from the start and many expected its conclusion would result in a preconceived notion that abortion pill reversal is “junk science.” Consider the bias of its authors. All five are dedicated pro-abortion advocates. Mitchell D. Creinin, is an abortionist and paid consultant with Danco Laboratories which manufactures mifepristone, the chemical abortion pill. Laura Dalton is an employee of Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Collectively, Planned Parenthood is the largest chain of abortion facilities in America and the most aggressive lobbyist for extreme pro-abortion laws on both the federal and state level. Melody Y. Hou, Rachel Steward, and Melissa J. Chen have all been or are currently abortionists.

The study’s goal was to enroll 40 pregnant women who had previously decided to have a surgical abortion. After consenting to a chemical abortion and receiving the mifepristone, the women were selected randomly to be given progesterone to attempt reversing the chemical abortion or a placebo. Those whose babies were still alive after two weeks were promised a surgical abortion.

The purpose of this ethically bankrupt research was to determine if a drug effectively saves the lives of babies, and if so, they guarantee mothers a dead child in the end.
After 12 women had been enrolled, researchers abruptly ended the study because of serious health concerns for those participating. Three women experienced “severe hemorrhage requiring ambulance transport to hospital.” One lost enough blood to require a transfusion.

A critical distinction that most media outlets have not made or highlighted is that two of the three women who experienced medical emergencies were given the placebo – that is, the only active drug they received and were suffering from was the mifepristone chemical abortion drug. One had been given progesterone. The potential of lethal blood loss has been an ever-present concern with chemical abortion. The study’s hasty demise underscores the need for the FDA to more closely scrutinize Danco’s death drug.

Knowing the vested interest of the authors in the abortion industry, it didn’t take rocket science to predict how they would spin the termination of their research. “Patients” they wrote, “should be advised that not using misoprostol [the follow-up drug] could result in severe hemorrhage, even with progesterone treatment.” The truth has been twisted to such a degree it more resembles a pretzel than a research finding.

The authors further denigrate the progesterone protocol by warning women that due to the “potential dangers” of changing their minds midway through the chemical abortion process, the progesterone protocol “must be considered experimental.” Further, they stated it should be done “only in institutional review board-approved human clinical trials to ensure proper oversight.” In other words, these abortionists and abortion advocates are saying, “We got this! You can trust us.”

Those behind the Abortion Pill Reversal network report 68% of the babies have been saved with the most effective progesterone protocol. Becky Buell and Cynthia Galvan were early beneficiaries. These two mothers have living, breathing children they adore because caring pro-life medical professionals were there to assist. Their numbers are growing and cannot be ignored.
Sincerely for babies and their mothers,
Bradley Mattes
President, Life Issues Institute
Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. For 27 years, organizations and individuals around the world have depended upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

A call for conscience rights for health care professionals


Physicians, nurses and pharmacists must be allowed to exercise their profession according to their conscience. They should not be forced to participate in practices to which they object on conscientious grounds. For more information, visit /www.canadiansforconscience.ca/

Watch the video below to hear testimonies from health care professionals:



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Update on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Lessons learned from Asia

From Elliot Institute News – July 22, 2019

Update on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Lessons Learned from Asia
By Joel Brind, Ph.D.

In 1996, I and my colleagues at Penn State Medical College published a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed medical literature on the connection between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.[1] In that paper, we predicted that the U.S. would experience tens of thousands of cases of breast cancer per year, attributable to abortion, in the coming decades. While that has sadly happened, since there are so many other risk factors at play, those cases are just a small minority of the total.

However, if our data were correct, what about all the much larger populations; the literally billions of women in Asia, especially in China, where abortion has been mandatory for the second child and beyond since 1980? In India and the rest of South Asia, where, unlike China, government has not coerced abortion, abortion rates dwarf the American statistics. Moreover, breast cancer has typically been relatively rare in the developing world, including Asia.

Therefore, if we were right about abortions being a real, causal risk factor for breast cancer back in 1996, now, over 20 years later, there should be a virtual epidemic of breast cancer all over Asia at least, with abortion being a main—if not the main—culprit. Sadly again, I must report, that indeed is what has taken place.
As early as 2008, a major review in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute[2] (NCI) concluded, “China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic.” Curiously, although the authors acknowledge, “the distribution of reproductive and lifestyle risk factors for Chinese women is changing rapidly,” they studiously avoid the word abortion (no surprise here really, as the NCI officially declared the abortion-breast cancer link [ABC link] nonexistent in 2003[3]). Now, a decade later, the evidence of the ABC link is exploding all over Asia.

In 2013, Hubei Huang et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) on abortion and breast cancer just in mainland China.[9] In just over two decades (1988 – 2012), there were no less than 36 individual studies on women in China. Huang et al. reporting a statistically significant 44 percent increase in breast cancer risk for women with one or more abortion, which went up to 76 percent for women with two or more abortions, and up to 89 percent increased risk for women with three or more abortions.

In 2018, colleagues at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute published a SRMA on the ABC link in women in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.[v] We found that in South Asia alone, in just the past decade (2007-2017) there were no fewer than 20 studies reporting data on this issue. The results were striking. Not only were the results statistically significant, and did the relative risk go up with the number of abortions, but the overall risk increase for women with one or more abortions was 151 percent; several times higher than had been reported before anywhere in the world. Meaning, the women in the study experienced a 1.5 times increased risk of developing breast cancer after having had one or more abortions.

That unusually strong ABC link raises the obvious question: What is different about South Asian women that makes them more vulnerable to the cancer risk-increasing effect of abortion? The answer lies in the meaning of the term “relative risk.” When we say that a woman’s risk goes up 50 percent with abortion, we are comparing her to the typical, average woman who has not had an abortion within that study population. Of course, women who have not had any abortions can still get breast cancer, as there are quite a number of risk factors.

Let us take, for example, a typical woman in the U.S. She has about a 10 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer in the absence of abortion. Abortion raises that risk to about a 13 percent lifetime risk. In South Asia, the typical woman is very different from the typical American woman; not because of any genetic differences, but because of cultural and lifestyle factors. Specifically, the typical South Asian woman (especially in rural areas), gets married and starts having children while still in her teens, she has lots of them and breastfeeds all of them. Moreover, she does not drink and doesn’t smoke. All of these things keep the risk of breast cancer down, to around a 2 percent lifetime risk, on average—not 10 percent, as in the U.S.

So what is the effect of abortion? It is about the same as in the U.S., that is, it adds about a 3 percent absolute risk to the lifetime risk: It brings the 2 percent lifetime risk up to about a 5 percent lifetime risk. As a relative term, it raises the 2 percent risk by 2.5-fold (150 percent), but in absolute terms, it’s the same 3 percent.

Another way to look at this statistic is to picture 200 average American women, half of whom have not had an abortion and half of whom have had an abortion. Of the former group, an average of 10 women will get breast cancer sometime in their life, whereas in the latter group, 13 women will get breast cancer. Now if we look instead at South Asian women, only about two of the women who had not experienced abortion will get breast cancer in their lifetime, but about five of the post-abortive women will get breast cancer; i.e., 3 percent more of them. (But in relative terms, 5 percent is 150 percent more than 2 percent.)

So we can see that women are the same the world over, in terms of what causes breast cancer, and it’s only about 3 percent of women who get an abortion will get breast cancer because of it. At first, 3 percent doesn’t sound like much. But consider that in China and India alone, there are about 1.4 billion women now alive. If about 30 percent of them have an abortion at some point in their life that would be 420 million women. Three per cent of 420 million comes out to 12.6 million who are likely to get breast cancer because of their abortions! Add to that the fact the mortality rate for breast cancer in that part of the world is close to 50 percent (in the U.S. it’s about 20 percent), and we’re talking about over 6 million women now alive in China and India who can be expected to die of breast cancer because they had an abortion!

Meanwhile, back in the States, the prestigious National Academy of Science and Medicine has weighed on the safety of abortion. In its recent policy publication: “The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States,[6]” the authors “debunked” the ABC link, relying on just three research papers. These three papers were old (2000, 2001 and 2005), flawed, and fraudulent — i.e. willfully false and misleading. I debunked them in the peer reviewed medical literature many years ago:

Newcomb & Mandelson, 2000 (USA):
Newcomb et al. had previously published a study in which they reported a 23 percent increased risk with abortion, with borderline statistical significance.[7] A scientifically valid effort to verify or nullify this finding in a subsequent study would require a study population that would yield greater statistical power than the prior study (i.e., a much larger study), yet the latter study was of much lower statistical power. Apparently, this was because it gave them the result they were looking for, so they could say that their “results do not support a relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence.[8]”

Goldacre et al., 2001 (England)[9]
Goldacre’s very large 2001 study was based on records for both abortion and breast cancer from the British National Health Service (NHS) database on residents of Oxford, UK, over a 30-year period (1968- 1998), so it appeared to provide a robust analysis. However, the database showed that scarcely more than 1 percent of patients (300 out of 28,616) had a record of induced abortion over the entire 30-year period, whereas the recorded abortion rate for the whole UK exceeded 1 percent per year for that period. Hence, more than 90 percent of women in the study who had had an abortion were misclassified as abortion-negative. That’s because most abortions in England are not done at NHS hospitals. Even the authors admitted that their “data on abortion are substantially incomplete.” But even that is an understatement: The study is worthless, even though the authors claimed, fraudulently, that abortion “does not increase the risk of breast cancer.”[10]

Brewster et al., 2005 (Scotland)[11]
The 2005 case-control study of Brewster et al. was nested in a nationwide database of Scottish NHS records of reproductive history and cancer diagnoses, and the authors present evidence to support their claim that their data on induced abortion “seem likely to be reasonably complete.” But inexplicably, the authors restricted the inclusion of women with any pre-1981 reproductive history to “those with some reproductive events occurring before 1981, and (for whom) number of pregnancies equaled number of births—that is, no miscarriages or induced abortions before 1981.” This arbitrary, unexplained and illegitimate cherry picking of who was included in the study meant the wholesale elimination of women for whom abortion preceded the first live birth. It distorted the abortion statistics beyond recognition, but it enabled the authors to come up a completely unsubstantiated and invalid conclusion that abortion provides a slight protective effect against breast cancer! The extreme bias in the study’s design and analysis, render it worthless for meaningful conclusions.[12]

In the world of abortion research, fake science has prevailed among the arbiters of public health information for almost 40 years, even as the real devastation takes its toll around the world: Breast cancer is now the leading cause of death of middle-aged women worldwide, in many instances thanks to abortion.


Joel Brind, PhD, is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York, where he has been teaching since 1986. He has been researching the abortion-breast cancer link since 1992. This article was originally published on Care Net’s Center Insights blog at care-net.org. Reprinted with permission.


1. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.
2. Linos L, Spanos D, Rosner BA et al. Effects of Reproductive and Demographic Changes on Breast Cancer Incidence in China: A Modeling Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100: 1352–60
3. National Cancer Institute. (2010, January 12). Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk: 2003 Workshop. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk#summary-report
4. Huang Y, Zhang X, Li W et al. A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females. Cancer Causes Control 2014;25:227-36. doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7 Epub 2013.
5. Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney, B. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on South Asian women. Issues Law Med 2018;33-54.
6. Committee on Reproductive Health Services: The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States. A Consensus Study Report of The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2018. Available at: http://nap.edu/24950
7. Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:777-781
8. Brind J. Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data. J Am Physicians Surgeons 2005;10:105-110.
9. Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates D. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-337
10. Brind JL, Chinchilli VM. Letter: Abortion and breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:237-238
11. Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, et al Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage casecontrol study. 2005;59:283-287.
12. Brind J. Methodological concerns re: abortion and breast cancer in Scotland. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 e-letter. Available at: https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/4/283.responses

Learn More:
Study of 36 Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer Studies a “Game Changer,” Says Scientist
Induced Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk by More Than 20-Fold, Study Finds
New Study’s Reported Findings on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Are Hyperinflated
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part I: Those Stubborn Facts Again
The Abortion Breast Cancer Link, Part II: The Cover Up
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part III: The Dagger Under the Table
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part IV: The Biology
How to Recognize a Cover-Up of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
Ideological Bias Risking the Lives of Young Women

For the most extensive online library of published studies on the physical and psychological effects of abortion, visit www.abortionrisks.org.

Shared from The Elliot Institute, Springfield, Illinois.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

BC Health Minister Says He Will force the Delta Hospice to Kill

Thursday, December 12, 2019

by Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia .


The BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, declared yesterday that the BC government will take action if the Delta hospice refuses to kill its patients.

Adrian Dix has suggested that they will stop funding the 10 bed Delta Hospice if it refuses to kill.

On December 2, I reported that the Board of the Delta BC Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its position opposing euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated:

“MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society’s constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.”

In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not part of hospice palliative care. They stated:
“MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care.
…Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life.” 

The Delta Optimist newspaper reported, on December 7, that Fraser Health informed the Delta Hospice that their position is at odds with the policy of Fraser Health. A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:
“The region noted it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.”

The position of the Delta Hospice is not new. In February 2018, the Delta Hospice was ordered by Fraser Health to provide euthanasia. The Delta Hospice did not comply with the Fraser Health edict.

If the Delta Hospice closes, the residents of Delta will lose the 10 bed hospice that is known for providing excellent end-of-life care.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian Hospice groups will be forced to do euthanasia.
Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Used with permission of the EPC.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians – Joint Call to Action



November 27, 2019

Due to ongoing confusion amongst the general public regarding Hospice Palliative Care (HPC) and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) would like to clarify the relationship of hospice palliative care and MAiD.

Healthcare articles and the general media continue to conflate and thus misrepresent these two fundamentally different practices. MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care [i] nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”.[ii] National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x]

Hospice palliative care and MAiD substantially differ in multiple areas including in philosophy, intention and approach.[xi] Hospice palliative care focuses on improving quality of life and symptom management through holistic person-centered care for those living with life threatening conditions. Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life. In MAiD, however, the intention is to address suffering by ending life through the administration of a lethal dose of drugs at an eligible person’s request.

Less than 30% of Canadians have access to high quality hospice palliative care, yet more than 90% of all deaths in Canada would benefit from it.[xii] [xiii] Despite this startling discrepancy, access to hospice palliative care is not considered a fundamental healthcare right for Canadians. In contrast, MAiD has been deemed a right through the Canada Health Act, even though deaths from MAiD account for less than 1.5% of all deaths in Canada.[xiv]

We call on the federal and provincial governments to prioritize funding and improve access to hospice palliative care in Canada, and to support the implementation and action plan of the National Framework for Palliative Care in Canada.[xv] Canadians must have a right to assistance in living with hospice palliative care, and not just a right to termination of life.


Sharon Baxter, MSW
Executive Director
Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA)
Annex D, Saint-Vincent Hospital
60 Cambridge Street, North
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7A5

Leonie Herx MD PhD FCFP (PC)
Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP)
Suite 584
1A – 12830 – 96th Avenue
Surrey, British Columbia V3V 0C2

[i] Buchman, Dr. Sandy. “Bringing Compassion to Medicine and to the CMA.” Canadian Medical Association, 12 Oct. 2019, https://www.cma.ca/dr-sandy-buchman.
[ii] Kutcher, Dr. Matt. “Navigating MAiD on PEI.” Canadian Medical Association, 19 Nov. 2018, https://www.cma.ca/dr-matt-kutcher.
[iii] World Health Organization (WHO). “WHO Definition of Palliative Care.” World Health Organization (WHO), https://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/.
[iv] De Lima L, Woodruff R, et al, International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care “Position Statement Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” JPM Vol 20, 1:1 -7.
[v] Radbruch, Lukas, et al. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A White Paper from the European Association for Palliative Care.” Palliative Medicine, vol. 30, no. 2, 2015, pp. 104–116., doi:10.1177/0269216315616524.
[vi] Australia and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine (ANZSPM) “Position Statement on the Practice of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide.” 31 Mar. 2017
[vii] Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association “Policy on Hospice Palliative Care and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).” Jun. 2019
[viii] Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians “Key Messages: Palliative Care and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).” May 2019.
[ix] “Statement on Physician-Assisted Dying.” American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM), 24 Jul. 2016, http://aahpm.org/positions/pad.
[x] Canadian Medical Association. “Palliative Care (Policy).” 2016
[xi] Shariff M & Gingerich M. “Endgame: Philosophical, Clinical and Legal Distinctions between Palliative Care and Termination of Life.” Vol. 85, Second Series Supreme Court Law Review 225. 2018
[xii] Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada and Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. “The Way Forward National Framework; a Roadmap for an Integrated Palliative Approach to Care.” Mar. 2015.
[xiii] Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians . “How to Improve Palliative Care in Canada – A Call to Action for Federal, Provincial, Territorial, Regional and Local Decision-Makers.” Nov. 2016.
[xiv] “Fourth Interim Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada.” Government of Canada, Health Canada, Apr. 2019, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/medical-assistance-dying-interim-report-april-2019.html.
[xv] “Framework on Palliative Care in Canada.” Government of Canada, Health Canada, 4 Dec. 2018, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/reports-publications/palliative-care/framework-palliative-care-canada.html.




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

No Charter Right to Abortion in Canada


Saturday, November 30, 2019By Patricia Maloney
There is [still] no Charter right to abortion in Canada
From Canadian Lawyer Magazine:
“Jennifer Taylor argues Canadians can’t trust the Tory leader on his promise to avert the anti-abortion movement”
In her article, Ms. Taylor repeats the urban legend that there is a Charter right to abortion in Canada. I responded to her article with my own letter.

Here is that letter:

Dear Canadian Lawyer Magazine,

I recently read this piece in your magazine by Jennifer Taylor. I must comment on this article, in particular, Ms. Taylor’s opening paragraph below.
“It’s been 50 years since abortion was partly decriminalized in Canada, and 31 years since R v Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the remaining Criminal Code restrictions. Surely, in 2019, Canadians have accepted that there is a constitutional right to abortion access in this country, and abortion is a publicly funded health care service – not a subject for debate. We’ve moved on. Right? Unfortunately, not.”
I take issue with Ms. Taylor’s comments, for two reasons.

In one breath Ms. Taylor invokes the constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech and conscience. In her next breath, she states that abortion is not up for debate. This appears to me to be a serious disconnect from both the spirit and the letter of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I posit that in a democracy, everything is up for debate. Even abortion.

Secondly, and this point is as important as the first, is the simple fact that there is no constitutional right to abortion in Canada. Abortion advocates have been pushing this myth for some time now but it simply is not true.

I refer you to an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court Morgentaler decision: .
“Contrary to what many Canadians think, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision striking down Canada’s abortion law, did not recognize a constitutional right to abortion. Nor did the Court “settle” the abortion issue as is often claimed. Rather, the Court left it to Parliament to come up with a new abortion law that would balance the rights of women with the state’s interest in the protection of the fetus, without offending the Charter.”
This analysis goes into great detail about what the Morgentaler did say, and what it did not say.

Clearly the Supreme Court did not resolve the abortion issue in 1988, but left it to Parliament to come up with a new law–which Parliament did not do. In fact, the Court was unanimous in also finding that the state did have an interest in the protection of fetal/unborn human life.
Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective. It follows that balancing these interests, with the lives and health of women a major factor, is clearly an important governmental objective.” (R v Morgentaler at page 75)
Historically, there has always been a clear recognition of a public interest in the protection of the unborn and there is no evidence or indication of general acceptance of the concept of abortion at will in our society. The interpretive approach to the Charter adopted by this Court affords no support for the entrenchment of a constitutional right of abortion. (R v Morgentaler, at p. 39)
There is no constitutional right to abortion in Canada. Parliament is exactly the place where a new law, can and should be debated, and where fetal protection can and should be provided. Just as the Supreme Court of Canada advised.

Debate in Canada–a free, democratic and highly educated country–should never be shut down. Especially over a topic as controversial, and as highly political, as abortion.

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

After the Choice

Abortion is often presented as a quick fix for women facing a crisis pregnancy. However, some women speak of grief and sorrow long after their abortion. They also recount how others encouraged and pressured them to have an abortion. In her book Giving Sorrow Words, Australian writer and researcher Melinda Tankard Reist features the personal stories of 18 women and “draws on the experience of more than 200 others.”

Ms. Reist writes: “Attitudes towards women overwhelmed by grief following abortion demonstrate a cruel indifference to women’s pain. Their suffering is considered a figment of their imagination; their guilt and remorse a byproduct of social/religious conditioning. In short, they are an embarrassment.”

“There is another constraint on their expression of grief. The politics surrounding abortion has drowned out the voices of women harmed by it.”

“Women whose lives are shattered by the abortion experience and for whom abortion was not a ‘maturational milestone’ and who did not feel it made them a ‘mistress of their own destiny’, are cast aside as over-sensitive, psychologically unstable, victims of socially constructed guilt. Their experience is trivialised.”1

The book Giving Sorrow Words is available on loan from Action Life’s office. 1-Tankard Reist, Melinda. Giving Sorrow Words.Duffy and Snellgrove, 2000.pp.8 and9.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Human life begins at fertilization

Image & text credit: Radiance Foundation

The first study of the human embryo was done by Wilhelm His, Sr. in the 1880’s. He published a three volume work called Anatomie  menschlicher Embryonen in 1880-1885. 

For more information about human embryology, our resource centre has copies available of  A Basic Guide To When A Human Being Begins & the Science Behind the Facts. This book is published by contendprojects.org.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

World Medical Association maintains its opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide

WMA Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

Adopted by the 70th WMA General Assembly, Tbilisi, Georgia, October 2019

The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

For the purpose of this declaration, euthanasia is defined as a physician deliberately administering a lethal substance or carrying out an intervention to cause the death of a patient with decision-making capacity at the patient’s own voluntary request. Physician-assisted suicide refers to cases in which, at the voluntary request of a patient with decision-making capacity, a physician deliberately enables a patient to end his or her own life by prescribing or providing medical substances with the intent to bring about death.

No physician should be forced to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor should any physician be obliged to make referral decisions to this end.

Separately, the physician who respects the basic right of the patient to decline medical treatment does not act unethically in forgoing or withholding unwanted care, even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Even the smallest person

Image credit: Pro-Life Campaign Ireland

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment