Freedom of speech, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, is trampled and under attack on some university campuses when the issue is abortion. Some want to silence the pro-life voice and prevent these students from discussing and presenting information about abortion. Students at Brandon University are now fighting for the right of their pro-life club to exist. We share with you a press release from the National Campus Life Network pertaining to the latest developments in this matter:

NEWS RELEASE: Students at Brandon University Sue their Student Union after Club Banned from Campus

Brandon, MB: Pro-life students at Brandon University have filed a lawsuit after having their club status withdrawn by their student union in November without warning. The Brandon University Student Union alleged that the pro-life stance made some students feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated” them. The union also argued that the club’s beliefs were contrary to the Canadian Federation of Students’ official pro-choice stance, and that the club itself was redundant because other campus groups (the LGBTQ Collective and the Women’s Collective) addressed the issue of abortion.

The club is not unfamiliar with censorship, as this is not the first time they have had to resort to legal aid in order to regain their official club status. “Our student union claims to serve students and support them in their efforts to share their passions and advocate for various causes,” states Catherine Dubois, president of Brandon University Students for Life, “However, over the past 4 years our club has been repeatedly censored and denied these opportunities offered to every other student. We are tired and frustrated with being treated in such a discriminatory manner.”

“It is unacceptable that a student on a university campus should have to resort to a court challenge to ensure they can enjoy the same freedoms as their peers on campus,” states Anastasia Pearse, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network, an organization dedicated to supporting post-secondary pro-life students, “It is disconcerting that campuses in our country are choosing to censor controversial issues rather than allow for open dialogue and debate.”

Currently, four other lawsuits initiated by pro-life student clubs are working their way through courts across the country. This is the highest number of lawsuits regarding campus free speech issues to be filed by pro-life clubs within a one-year period. The other universities include Ryerson University, the University of Toronto Mississauga, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and the University of Alberta.

“Abortion is an issue that personally affects women of the university age,” states Pearse, “we believe that women deserve to know everything about this procedure, even if the information makes people feel uncomfortable. Universities should not be afraid to accommodate opposing views on important and even controversial issues. With over 250 abortions occurring every day in Canada, this is a conversation that students ought to be having.”

For further information:

Anastasia Pearse
Executive Director, National Campus Life Network
director@ncln.ca
604-365-3484

Catherine Dubois, Brandon University Students for Life
204-570-1710 or duboiscm52@brandonu.ca

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

How many abortions in Canada?

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Stats | Leave a comment

Every life matters

0e4978394_1458828976_kevin02a

Sharing from Youth Defence Ireland

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

Majority of Canadians oppose forcing physicians and religious institutions to participate in euthanasia

Seniors and conscience rights (1)You can learn more at: http://lifecanada.org/images/National%20Polls/LifeCanada_Research_-_Doctor_Assited_Death_GENERAL_FINAL_HB1.pdf

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Stop the discrimination against unborn children with Down Syndrome

Sadly, today, while society speaks of inclusion on the one hand, unborn children with Down Syndrome are being eliminated through abortion at an astonishing rate. 80 to 90% of pregnancies where the child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome end in abortion. These abortions constitute a form of eugenics rejecting the child because of his genetic makeup. The information presented to parents about Down syndrome is often negative. In an Ottawa Citizen March 2nd 2008 article, Krista Flint, executive director of the Down Syndrome Society said:

” We would like to see information given to women in a fair and balanced and value neutral way. We don’t think that’s the case currently – we know that’s not the case. Families involved with (the society) tell us regularly that that hasn’t been their experience. The central message they receive is ‘Don’t have this baby, it could ruin your life.”

 

Some parents have reported pressure and an assumption from medical professionals that abortion will follow the diagnosis. In the same series of articles in this March 2008 feature, the experience of one couple is reported:

“His parents faced pressure and silent disapproval from doctors when they stated their choice again and again, to have the baby.”

Many parents of children with Down Syndrome will tell you that their children are a blessing not a burden, that their children have brought much joy end enriched their lives.

SDD_MainSharing image from the Lejeune Foundation USA .

 

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

Ontario physicians who oppose assisted suicide are legally challenging CPSO referral requirement.

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the  Euthanasia Prevention Coalition reports on the latest developments concerning freedom of conscience for health care workers in Ontario:

The Coalition for HealthCare and Conscience is seeking a judicial review of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) policy requiring physicians who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, to refer patients to a physician who will kill.

According to the Coalition:

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CSPO) demands that doctors who conscientiously object to assisted suicide refer patients seeking to end their lives to other physicians who will provide the procedure.

No other foreign jurisdiction that has legalized assisted suicide requires doctors to perform or refer for this procedure. Other provinces have already implemented guidelines to protect doctors who object to providing or referring for assisted suicide.

Larry Worthen, the executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, and one of the coalition group members stated:

“The current approach of the CPSO demands that doctors set aside their morals and go against their conscience to directly refer for assisted suicide,”

“In our view, effective referral and participating in assisted suicide are morally and ethically the same thing.”

Three physicians groups are working together to legally challenge the CPSO policy. The Coalition is demanding that the CPSO amend their policy to enable physicians who oppose assisted suicide to continue to practise medicine in Ontario. According to the Coalition:

Protecting conscience rights of health practitioners would require only minor accommodations, such as allowing patients direct access to an assessment or allowing complete transfer of care to another physician.

A strong majority of Canadians are on side with the coalition’s beliefs on conscience protection. A recent Nanos Research poll found that 75% of Canadians agreed that doctors “should be able to opt out of offering assisted dying,” compared with 21% who disagreed.

Larry Worthen emphasizes that Conscience rights can and must be protected:

“There are ways to respect patients’ wishes while protecting conscience rights,”

“Not to do so is discrimination against people for their morals and convictions, which are protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience represents a group of like-minded organizations, including representing more than 110 healthcare facilities (with almost 18,000 care beds and 60,000 staff) and more than 5,000 physicians across Canada, that are committed to protecting conscience rights for faith-based health practitioners and facilities. We were brought together by a common mission to respect the sanctity of human life, to protect the vulnerable and to promote the ability of individuals and institutions to provide health care without having to compromise their moral convictions.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Euthanasia in Holland

Euthanasia is lethal

 

Euthanasia advocates often dismiss the existence of a slippery slope as concerns the practice of euthanasia. Yet, the experience in Holland proves it is real. Ethicist Theo Boer a nine year member of a euthanasia regional review committee in the Netherlands writes that the numbers of euthanasia deaths started increasing by 15% each year beginning in 2007. There were 5,306 euthanasia deaths in 2014, almost three times the number from 2002. During his time on the committee, he reviewed nearly 4,000 cases of euthanasia.

Regarding cases of non-voluntary euthanasia , he says: “On top of these voluntary deaths there are about 300 non-voluntary deaths (where the patient is not judged competent) annually. These are cases of illegal killing, extracted from anonymous surveys among physicians , and therefore almost impossible to prosecute.”

“Furthermore , contrary to claims made by many, the Dutch law did not bring down the number of suicides; instead suicides went up by 35% over the past six years.”

The reasons for requesting and granting euthanasia have expanded as well:”…an increasing number of patients now seek assisted dying because of dementia, psychiatric illnesses, and accumulated age-related complaints…In some reported cases, the suffering largely  consists of being old, lonely or bereaved.”

The Dutch Right to Die Society (NVVE) “offers course materials to high schools intended to broaden support for euthanasia as a normal death.”

NVVE  is also responsible for setting up a mobile euthanasia clinic where doctors will go to the patient to euthanize them. This travelling unit is for patients whose own doctors will not agree to their euthanasia request.

Mr. Boer continues:”As part of its campaign, NVVE distributed pillboxes containing 50 tiny peppermints. Called the Last Will Pill, the box illustrates the organization’s resolve to make a suicide pill available to anyone aged 70 and older.”

No slippery slope? Think again.

Source :Rushing toward death? Assisted dying in the Netherlands by Theo A.Boer , March 28, 2016  The Christian Century.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Words matter.

On May 27th, Lifenews.com published an article by Wesley J. Smith concerning the use of deceptive language surrounding the practices of abortion, euthanasia and vulnerable members of the human family. We have seen ample evidence of this in Canada prior to the tabling of the euthanasia and assisted suicide Bill C-14. For years, advocates have referred to euthanasia and assisted suicide as ‘death with dignity’, ‘medical aid in dying’, ‘assisted death’ and resorting to another familiar slogan, ‘My body, my choice”.  Many media reports, members of Parliament and Senators speak of medically assisted death and medical assistance in dying. In euthanasia, the physician does not assist your death, he causes your death by lethal injection. In assisted suicide, he will provide the means for the patient to commit suicide by prescribing lethal drugs. Either way, he plays a role in bringing about the death of the patient.

Wesley J. Smith writes:

“Words also have the power to degrade the human dignity of born and grown people. A classic example is the pejorative term “vegetable,” referring to those with severe cognitive disabilities and impairments. Even the diagnostic term used to describe the condition of permanently unconscious patients—“persistent vegetative state”—is pejorative, perhaps the only explicitly demeaning medical term. (Why not use the perfectly accurate “persistent unconscious state”?) The V-word has the effect—and in some cases, indeed, the purpose—of excluding these human beings from the moral community and exposing them to oft-proposed forms of oppression and exploitation—such as allowing them to be used for live-organ harvesting and as subjects in medical experimentation.

We see the same phenomenon in our debates around end-of-life care and assisted suicide. The Dutch euthanasia practitioner Dr. M.A.M. Wachter, ethicist/director for the Institute of Health in the Netherlands, made this point explicitly when he appeared at a 1990 international euthanasia society convention. “The definitions build the road to euthanasia,” he stated, explaining that even the word “euthanasia” (“good death”) could harm the cause, because people naturally recoil from the killing act.

Thus, Wachter urged his audience to prevaricate and obfuscate: “Definitions are not neutral. They are not just the innocent tools that allow us to describe reality. Rather, they shape our perceptions of reality. They select. They emphasize. They embody a bias. Therefore, definitions constantly need redefinition.” This is precisely why the Hemlock Society, an assisted-suicide advocacy organization, changed its name to Compassion and Choices and now deploys the euphemism “aid in dying” in its media and advocacy materials.

In these times, language as an accurate conveyor of ideas is under constant assault. Knowing this, we must strive to keep our language precise and descriptive, particularly when it comes to controversies surrounding human dignity. We should be vigilant against words that dehumanize weak and vulnerable people and suspicious of rhetoric that masks movements’ real goals. We should be wary of words that serve as honey to make the hemlock go down.”

LifeNews Note: Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. His new book, Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine,was just published by Encounter Books.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | 1 Comment

Protect Doctors’ Conscience Rights: Belgium’s advice to Canada

This is the latest video in a series produced by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.Bill C-14, the euthanasia and assisted suicide bill introduced by the Liberal government in April contains no conscience protection clause for health care providers.  Albertos Polizogopoulos, a constitutional lawyer, representing Canadian Physicians for Life pointed out:

“The bill provides no protection for conscientious objectors. In fact it compels them to be part of the chain of events leading up to a person’s death. Absent explicit protections for health practitioners’ conscience rights, the bill violates their Canadian Charter  of Rights and Freedoms right to freedom of conscience.”

Source: The Interim, May 2016.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Belgium warns Canada: Safeguards are an illusion

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment