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

Why aren’t women being told?

Why aren’t women being told that an induced abortion increases their risk of breast cancer? The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an international Women’s organization  published educational materials on the topic.  The Coalition reports in their 2006 brochure Why aren’t women being told?: the most preventable cause of breast cancer that:

  • “This situation is akin to the early studies that indicated that cigarette smoking was linked to heart disease and lung cancer in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but that those medical establishments initially denied…We are at a similar crossroads for women and induced abortion today…”  Elizabeth Shadigian, MD, University of Michigan, testified that experts have sufficient evidence  to identify breast cancer as  a long-term health consequence of abortion. South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, 9/21/05.
  • “The unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious breach…When the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community – for reasons that are ideological rather than factual – the feelings of betrayal will be strong.” Furton E., Ethics & Medicas 2004;29;1-2.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The scandal of raking in tax dollars – Part 2

by Patricia Maloney

. . .there’s no moral equivalence between anti-choice groups and pro-choice groups.” Joyce Arthur August 2019


Further to my previous report on government funding to organizations who signed the Options letter, there is even more government funding going to these kinds of organizations that promote/support/fund abortion. Many of them are foreign companies, but also Canadian companies.

This post uncovers some of that funding to these organizations.

(Other funding to Canadian organizations will be disclosed in subsequent posts.)

Today I can tell you that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are funding at least 1,398,412,544 dollars to groups who promote/support/fund abortion. That is $1,007,110,155 as reported by Global affairs plus an additional $391,302,389 going to many of these same international organizations (for some reason not reported by Global Affairs), along with Canadian feminist organizations. All in the name of ‘reproductive choice’.

(Notice this caveat at the Global Affairs link: “All data is preliminary and will be updated regularly as more information becomes available through project implementation. Given operational sensitivities certain projects contributing SRHR are not included in this list.” Why not? What are they hiding from us?)

If you are a feminist organization, the Canadian government’s pockets’ are very deep.

A couple of interesting things in the data jumped out at me:

Abortion doctor Wendy Norman received $2,434,814

The Clintons received $19,950,000 for Sexual and Reproductive Health for Women and Adolescents in Northern Nigeria. (Abortion is generally illegal in Nigeria.)

Aga Khan Foundation Canada received $19,449,291 for Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health in Cabo Delgado. (Aga Khan of Justin Trudeau’s first conflict of interest fame)

More Canada summer job funding

Over one million to Regroupement féministe du Nouveau-Brunswick inc (good work if you can get it)

Most of these Canadian dollars go to abortion in Africa and Central America, where for the most part, abortion is illegal. Over one billion dollars worth of ‘reproductive choice’.

Obianuju Ekeocha in her book Target Africa – Ideological neocolonialism in the twenty-first Century tells us that Africans do not want abortion. That Africans love big families. That Africans value all human life. That most Africans are against abortion. She should know, being born and raised in Nigeria:

“A 2014 Ipsos study found that 87 percent of Kenyans oppose abortion on demand…The vast majority of Africans said that abortion was morally unacceptable: 92 percent of Ghanaians, 88 percent of Ugandans, 82 percent of Kenyans, 80 of Nigerians, and 77 of Tunisians said they considered abortion to be morally wrong.”

She tells us about the Maputo Protocol which was supposed to bring rights to African women. This is what Obianuju Ekeocha says about article 14 of the Protocol:

“It is obvious that article 14 was incorporated into the Maputo Protocol in order to open the door to legal abortion throughout the continent…it has become the most lobbied, campaigned, and promoted by Western-funded feminist organizations across Africa. Millions of dollars have been given to weaponize the forty words of the article that provide a license to kill Africa’s unborn children.” 

Obianuju Ekeocha also argues against accepting the billions of dollars in aid given to Africa. She says that aid is tied to “control over many aspects of African life, including sexual behaviour and reproduction rates.”

She concludes with this:
“So why is it acceptable for wealthy Westerners to send along contraceptives with their humanitarian aid after a hurricane or another natural disaster? Trying to stop people in the developing world from having children should be considered appalling, especially since doing it is not a development strategy. It is an invasion strategy, and that is why Africa must walk away from aid.”
That’s now a total of $1,550,884,070 ($152,471,526 from my last post + 1,398,412,544) Canadian taxpayer funding to organizations that promote/support/fund abortion. And counting…

In case you had any doubt that abortion is big business.

First published at run-with-life.blogspot.com. (August 18, 2019)

P.S.: Joyce Arthur, quoted at the beginning of this article, is an abortion advocate in Canada.

Photo credit: PersonhoodUSA.com

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The scandal of raking in tax dollars

by Patricia Maloney

(This was first published July 24 at the Interim)

The pro-abortion groups who actively worked to ban pro-life groups from receiving the Canada Summer Jobs Program–strongly benefited from that same Canada Summer Jobs Program. And they benefited from lots of other government funding as well.

Last year Joyce Arthur reported that pro-life groups had received $1.8 in funding for the Canada Summer jobs program over eight years. That’s a pittance really, especially since it was over eight years.

Arthur and company then lobbied to stop this funding. This resulted in the Liberals’ attestation clause, which meant anyone applying for the grant money would now have to support abortion. Part of Arthur’s campaign, was a letter written and signed by 91 “reproductive choice” groups.

Here’s what Arthur said about this funding to pro-life groups:
“The real scandal is not the new Canada Summer Jobs attestation requirement, but the fact that anti-choice groups have been raking in all this taxpayer cash for years.”

So how much money did these pro-abortion signatories “rake in” since Justin Trudeau came to power in 2016? Over 152 million ($152,471,526 to be exact).

That’s our 1.8 million, compared to their $152.5 million.

I say at least, because the two databases I searched are not up-to-date. The grants and contributions database is currently being updated for 2019 grants. There are also grants and contributions not in the database at all. The other database is CRA’s charities database. I only extracted two years of this CRA data, since tax returns are always reported well after the fact, and I only extracted records since Justin Trudeau came to power in 2016. And these numbers do not even include the funding for the actual abortions. That’s millions and millions of dollars more.

It seems Justin Trudeau’s abortion funding knows no bounds.

(There are other organizations who also support abortion and who also receive federal, provincial and municipal funding. That will be a project for a later date. This analysis only covers the signatories of this Open Letter.)

You will see that most of these organizations do benefit from the Canada Summer Jobs Program. Along with other federal funding, provincial funding, and municipal funding.

Pushing abortion is a very lucrative business. The money just pours out of our pockets into the pockets of the pro-abortions.

 

Pro-life groups receive no other federal funds, except for the Summer Jobs grants. And now we can’t even receive that.

We are not “well funded” but the pro-abortion groups are. Pro-life groups fund themselves in the work they do, to save lives. Pro-abortion groups are funded by the taxpayer in the work they do, to take lives. That Joyce Arthur is the real scandal.

UPDATE July 29: Clarification on the government funding totals. The groups who signed the letter who opposed funding to pro-life groups, received a total of $152,471,526 in government funding. This number includes funding from the Canada Summer Jobs Program, as well as other federal government funding, as well as provincial and municipal government funding. 

From: Run-with-lifeblogspot.com

Reprinted with permission of Pat Maloney

Action Life does not apply or receive funds from any level of government. We are entirely funded through donations from our supporters.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Breast Cancer : Risks and Choices

Interview with Dr. Joel Brind from Heritage House Publishers

“Question: How can abortion ultimately cause breast cancer?

Answer: Almost all of the risk factors which are known to increase the risk of breast cancer are associated with some kind of excess exposure to the main female sex steroid hormone, estrogen. The theory on how this works in an abortion is quite simple.

The biggest surge of estrogen occurs in the first trimester of pregnancy, stimulating the growth of breast tissue. Toward the end of the pregnancy other hormones kick in that make the breast tissue mature. These hormones also remove cells that are not needed. Once the mature cells are ready to produce milk, they are no longer in growing mode. Consequently they are much less likely to be subject to the effects of carcinogens, the substances that produce cancer.

If you have an abortion during the first 32 weeks of pregnancy, you get all these growth-promoting effects on the tissues because of the big surge of estrogen. Without the differentiating and maturing effects of the later hormones, the net result is the opposite of what you will find in a full-term pregnancy. It’s known that a full term pregnancy, especially when it is early in a woman’s reproductive life, is protective against breast cancer. But an early abortion not only does not confer that protection but instead causes increased risk. Thus, the extra estrogen ultimately can cause abnormal cells to grow into full blown cancer.”

Source: Breast cancer- risks and choices: An eyewitness account. Heritage House, c2019.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why women have late term abortions

In April 1999, Marnie Ko at the B.C. Catholic wrote about a presentation by Vancouver doctor Jonathan Cope. She reports that he had  ” presented a paper called  “Late Term Abortion Techniques” at the University of British Columbia’s Medical Symposium on Abortion in 1997. He gave the following as reasons why women will have late term abortions:

“Women are awaiting results from genetic testing, women don’t know they are pregnant, women are abandoned by the father which is a common reason, particular areas (of British Columbia)give women difficulty getting referrals (for an abortion), (there is) fear of parental retribution, or that the husband (of the pregnant mother) wants a boy.”

The majority of these reasons are social not medical in nature. As concerns the reason that women are waiting for the results of genetic testing, it has been found that some parents who abort because the child has been diagnosed with a fetal anomaly, suffer from the psychological impact of the abortion long after.

The de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research reported on such a study:

..research finds that 40% of women who abort for fetal abnormality suffer long term emotional distress. A leading authority writes that “Women 2-7 years after were expected to show a significant lower degree of traumatic experience and grief than women 14 days after termination… Contrary to hypothesis, however the results, showed no significant differences.”1

A life affirming option exists at perinatal hospices. The child can be carried to term and receive palliative care after birth. Parents who continue the pregnancy have the opportunity to spend time with their baby, no matter how short their life may be, a few hours, weeks or months. The parents are supported by a team of obstetricians, nurses, chaplains, neonatologists and social workers. The de Veber Institute mentions a study by Drs. Byron Cahloun and P. Napolito which found that “80% of parents who were provided with the option of perinatal care chose to carry their child to term. Parents who are offered support in continuing pregnancy and caring for their disabled child overwhelmingly choose to carry to term”, says the Institute.

  1. Kersting, A. et al. (2005) “Trauma and grief 2-7 years after termination of pregnancy because of fetal abnormalities”. Journal of Psychosoc Obstet & Gynae. V26, #1, 9-14.

      2. Calhoun,Bc, Napolito, P. et al. (2003) “Perinatal hospice: comprehensive care for the             family of the fetus with a lethal condition.” JReproMed. V48:343-348.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Abortion is not the answer

Sharing from savethestorks.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment