Personhood Amendments

Good news today. 7 American States have introduced personhood amendments. (See story here) A personhood amendment would establish conception as the point where life begins and when human beings become persons under the law. If passed these amendments would make the abortion of the unborn a murder under the law. North Dakota, Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon and South Carolina all have the amendment drives under way. A similar initiative failed on the Colorado ballot this year.

I think it's awesome that the pro-life movements in those states have managed to keep life issues on the political radar, and I hope and pray that these amendments will pass. Its issues like this that remind me why I went into law in the first place. I went into law because I think law has power. If these amendments pass, it wipes out the effect of pro-abortion decisions like Roe v. Wade and R v. Morgentaler in an instant. Abortion, instead of being legal, becomes illegal; it becomes murder. That would change everything; and that's power, real power. To protect the unborn we need the law.

Though I know these amendments face an uphill battle and have very little likelihood of passing, the fact that they are even up is a huge step forward for the rights of the unborn. The more that we keep life issues in the news and in our legislatures, the better our chances to protect the unborn. While the law doesn't currently protect the unborn, it is the most powerful tool we have to protect them, if we can only get our legislatures and judges to use it.

Personhood amendments go a long way in this area because they identify the unborn, not as a clump of cells, but as a person, equal in rights to any born human being. As we enter Lent tomorrow, let's keep the unborn and our politicians, lawmakers and judges in our prayers, and maybe some of these amendments will pass.

Framing the debate

Reading the paper today (The Sheaf), I had a bit of a revelation. The crux of the abortion debate seems to be in ensuring that we know where all parties to the debate stand. The reason our discussion seems so fruitless at times, I think, is because pro-lifers and pro-choicers are arguing from completely different perspectives. Pro-choicers presuppose that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and pro-lifers presuppose that there is everything wrong with abortion. I know- that doesn't seem like a big revelation, but when you think it through, it becomes much more.

There is no way we can dialogue with pro-choicers unless we recognize where they are coming from. If law has taught me anything, it's taught me that we need to use precise language and we need to frame the debate clearly before it even begins. I don't think we do a good job of that when we start conversations with pro-choicers. It's not easy to frame the debate, but if we are going to succeed in our debate and change hearts and minds, we MUST frame the debate.

This is especially important now, because historically the pro-choice movement has done a better job than pro-lifers in framing the debate- they have convinced the majority (the people who've never really thought about the issue) that abortion is perfectly acceptable. When most people start discussing their opinion on abortion they don't even realize that they've already accepted, subconsciously, that abortion is a valid option. Before we can ever convince them to be pro-life, we have to make them see that they are presupposing the acceptability of abortion.

It's not easy- I can't give you a step by step method to do it because every person is different and will respond differently to different questions. All I can advise is to ask short, simple yes or no questions. Make them realize that they are assuming abortion is correct. Once you've established that is their perspective, you can begin the dialogue- and you have to begin the dialogue around that issue. You have to convince them first that abortion is never acceptable. We do that by proving the humanity and personhood of the unborn child.

I am convinced that this is the only way we can win this debate. Abortion has been legal for so long people (generally) don't stop to question it. And to succeed that's what we need to do- we need to make people question what they have been fed for so long. The pro-choicers have framed the debate in terms of women's rights, and reproductive choice for so long. We need to change that in order to win.

And win we must. Lives depend on it.

Freedom isn’t Free

And I was worried about attacks on my pro-life club! If you remember, I blogged (here and here) about the controversy at the University of Calgary when their pro-life club decided to hold a GAP (Genocide Awareness Project). Well, today 3 members of the club were served with summons to appear in court to speak to the charge of trespass.

That's right; the U of C has formally charged 3 of their students with the crime of trespass. 3 others are expecting to be charged. Read the story here or here. I have a few questions, so here they are in no particular order.

1. How can students who've paid their tuition and been invited to attend the university be trespassing? (Oh right, because they don't like their opinion)
   
   
2. Why do all of the headlines on this story use anti-choice instead of pro-life (especially when the club is called prolife)? (Oh wait, I know because we've all bought the semantic arguments)
   
   
3. Where does a public institution, funded with tax dollars, get off claiming that the University is not a public institution? (Seriously, study some 1^st year Constitutional Law people)
   
   
4. Why did the U of C take 2 months to lay charges? (I have no snarky comment to make here- I would genuinely like to know)
   
   
5. Is the U of C charging them because they truly believed they trespassed illegally or because they don't like the message- would they charge Falun Gong protestors? (I think we all know the answer to that one)
   

I spent all day following this story and reading people's responses to it. The negative responses all seem to argue one of the following things:

1. They assume the club is religiously based and criticize the club for "pushing their beliefs on others"- This is a silly argument and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing. They are assuming that because the club members are pro-life, they are also religious. While the members might be religious, it does not change the scientific and intellectual nature of their arguments. Calling them religious and dismissing them is an ad hominum (personal) attack and ignores the merits of their arguments.
   
   
2. They take exception to comparing abortion to the Holocaust or Rwanda- again, they misunderstand the point of the protest. Abortion is compared to genocide because it IS genocide. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. That means that every abortion is a murder, and that systematic, government funded abortion is genocide.
   
   
3. They complain about the graphic nature of the images- Yes, the images are graphic. I hate seeing them, and almost inevitably cry after seeing a number of them. But that reaction doesn't mean showing the pictures is wrong. Historically, disturbing graphic images are almost always the impetus that drives change. For example, it was the diagram showing how crammed into the hold of a ship slaves were that drove the first abolitionists to act. It was images of black people being shot with high pressure fire hoses, and the pictures of Emmett Till's beaten and broken body that gave Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists the courage to act. It was the pictures of thin, emaciated Jews in concentration camps after liberation by Allies that made people truly believe genocide had occurred. At the time all these pictures were shown they were called graphic, and denounced in the same way that GAP is denounced. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it important. Especially today, we live in a very visual culture. Pictures can change hearts and minds. After all, a "picture is worth a thousand words."
   
   
4. They also argue that all the students had to do was turn the signs inward and the U of C would have allowed them to be displayed- This argument ignores the fact that the request by the university amounts to discrimination. The U of C Pro-life club is a club like every other club, and yet no other club is forced to turn their displays inward. Why should the U of C club submit to discrimination?
   
   
5. The other argument is that the students were warned they would be charged with trespass- That cannot be denied. But the students aren't complaining that they were charged; they are complaining that people are trying to censor them. Censorship is wrong. The students knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and they did it anyway because they knew what they were doing was right. Instead of condemning them, we should be congratulating them for their courage. People who stand up for liberty against tyranny should be hailed as heroes. Where would we be if the suffragettes had refused to speak out? If the abolitionists had been cowed by slave owner's threats? If civil rights activists had agreed jail was too high a price to pay? The world would be a much different place.
   

The U of C students were not violent; they merely put up some signs outside. Those pictures showed graphic images- of that there can be no doubt, but these students deserve our praise. Not only have they brought attention to abortion (which people try to ignore if they can) but they have brought attention to lack of tolerance at Canadian Universities. Freedom isn't free people. It comes at a cost, as these young Canadians are showing us all. God Bless them.

They will all be in my prayers; and I hope in yours too. But beyond prayers, please take a minute to right a polite, respectful letter to the U of C. Contact information is below. Send a copy of your letter to the two Calgary papers- the Sun and the Herald.

Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
Email: president@ucalgary.ca

Media Bias Hits Home

Apparently the media cheerleading for the left has hit campus newspapers as well. On Monday, the pro-life group at my university hosted a Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The group invited the campus paper, The Sheaf, to cover the story, which they did. You can read their article here.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: Before I go any further, I suppose I should make it clear that I am a member of the campus pro-life group, but I will do my best to give fair, unbiased coverage about the facts. Also note that this post is going to be something of a rant because I am seriously annoyed. My apologies in advance. ***

(See, at least I'm honest about my bias upfront. The rest of the media could learn something from that.)

Despite giving half a page to the story, the coverage of the actual presentation is one sentence. "They [Silent No More] have a group of women who have had abortions tell their stories and explain why they regret that decision." So, here is my (relatively) unbiased news coverage of the event.

On January 26, 2009 the U of S Students for Life (USSL) hosted a group called Silent No More on campus. This group spent the day with a table set up in the Arts Tunnel. The display featured large signs which read "I regret my abortion." A group of 6 women from Silent No More presented their personal story and experience of abortion at 12pm and 4pm that day in a classroom in the Arts building. These testimonies included the women giving the reason they had their abortion, the physical, mental and spiritual harm they suffered as a result of that abortion. Before the women began giving their testimony, the spokeswoman for the group outlined the history of Silent No More and its chief goals and aims; the most important being that women who suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome can find help. At the end of the presentation, the spokeswoman offered the names and contact information for groups that help women to heal from abortion. Several of the women who gave their story testified to the help they found at a retreat known as Rachel's Vineyard. Attendance at the 12pm presentation was approximately 12 individuals. At 4pm, upwards of 40 individuals filled the classroom to hear the presentation.

There, is it so hard to give an unbiased version of events? When you are putting the story on page 2, in the news section, I would expect it to be a news story, not an editorial. Of course papers are free to editorialize; in fact the editorial pages of newspapers tend to be my favorite pages, but you need to make it clear to others when you are editorializing and when you are setting out the facts of an event that happened.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: I will now begin to editorialize and do not claim to be unbiased in the following paragraphs ***

The rest of the Sheaf's article rehashes a story they ran a few weeks ago, and not surprisingly gets the facts wrong. For example they state that those who attended the noon presentation were either pro-choice women from the Women's Centre or "directly involved with Silent No More or related to the presenters." I was at the noon presentation, and my recollection is that there were 2 people from the USSL, 2 women not involved with Silent No More or the USSL, the daughter of one presenter, the 4 women from the Women's Centre, 2 people from the Sheaf and 3 other people I did not know, plus the 6 women involved in the presentation.

But, more to the point, why does who attended matter? And, if counting attendees was so important to the story, why did they not come back to the 4pm presentation; the one that occurred after classes were over for the day, and note that over 40 people attended, none of whom were involved in the presentation or related to those giving the presentation? Oh, I know, because that would take away from the spin they are trying to subtly put on the article.

They also manage to work in the fact that Silent No More is affiliated with Anglicans for Life. What purpose is served by noting that? I'm surprised actually that they didn't note that it is also affiliated with Priests for Life, which is, at least in the politically correct world a far more damning connection. Who cares who they are affiliated with unless you are trying to connect them with that radical and dangerous group known as Christians- After all, as everyone knows, all pro-lifers are motivated by religious ideals and couldn't possibly be speaking from a scientific or intellectual perspective.

And, the "fact" that annoys me most is the assertion that the USSL failed to attend a meeting set up on December 5. That makes the USSL look like they have something to hide now doesn't it. I agree it would merit publication, except for the fact that it isn't true. No meeting was set up for December 5 that the USSL had any knowledge of (and I have the e-mails to prove that statement if anyone cares to read them). While I may not be a lawyer yet, I did study the tort of libel in first year law. The Sheaf is getting awfully close with some of the stuff they are publishing. (I keep decrying the lack of practical hands on experience in law school; maybe I should take this on…)

I also find it interesting that a formal harassment complaint has been made against the USSL. Again, to my knowledge no one has made a formal complaint; in fact, just yesterday I was told on the record that no formal process had yet begun. Again, getting very close to libel.

My point in this rant, which may have escaped you due to it's length, is that once again the "free press" has proven itself to be neither unbiased nor too concerned with actually reporting the news. Spinning things to go your way is much more fun apparently. At least other papers have the excuse (such as it is) that they are trying to sell papers, and sensationalization sells. The Sheaf has no such excuse- all U of S students pay a fee that goes directly to The Sheaf, and the paper is freely distributed on campus. That's right- I'm paying to have this publication publish facts that they spin and outright lie about. Doesn't that just take the cake.

(I will likely be blogging more on this topic as it develops. Comment if you don't want to hear more, otherwise you will hear more.)

Not Sure…

I don't know what to think about this video. I see the point they are trying to get across, but I don't know that they made it in the best way. They are obviously trying to comment on the common point of view that a child who will grow up poor is better off never being born, but I don't know that Barak Obama was the best choice. After all he is a man who supports abortion very vocally.

I've watched this video a few times now, and my initial reaction really hasn't changed; I felt uncomfortable with it, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea, but I'm not sure they made their point in a very concrete way. The organization who made the video is Catholic Vote, but when their logo flashed up at the end, I wondered if they were trying to say Catholics should vote Obama, or, well I'm not sure what. The idea of the video is good, but in the end its presentation seems off and unclear. At the end of the video I'm left wondering exactly what their message is. And I know this organization is pro-life, but I've been to their website before. I'm not sure that the average person seeing that video is going to go to their webpage after watching the video, so I don't know that they are really getting their point across.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm sorry for the short post tonight- it's been a crazy day. Also, I'm going to be on the road this weekend dealing with some family stuff, so I may not post tomorrow. Fresh posts on Monday at the latest though! Have a great weekend.

An Open Letter to Tolerance

My Dear Friend Tolerance:

I don't know where you have gone, but I'm asking, nay, begging you to please come back to this world. I fear something terrible must have happened to you because I know that you would never let such atrocities be committed in your name if you were able to speak out. Your name has been co-opted by your most evil cousin Intolerance. He is using your proud name to push down and aside all those laboring to share conservative values with the world. For example, if someone dares to suggest that killing children while they grow inside their mother's womb, Intolerance cries out your name and says those people are not Tolerating the different viewpoints this modern world needs to allow for. He also smacks down anyone who dares to suggest that perhaps all this "progress" is dangerous for the entire world. Many times these voices crying out for the unborn are timid, quiet voices, just gaining the courage to speak. And in your name Intolerance shouts them down and drowns them out.

You may be wondering what if I can give you examples, but there are so many, I almost don't know where to start. However, today I learned exactly where I need to start. I need to start on a university campus in Saskatchewan. It may be small and insignificant in the grand order of things, but it is my campus and my home. At a University Student's Council meeting (a perfidious, dangerous place) a friend of Intolerance (who happens to work for one of Intolerance's chief disciples, the Woman's Center) got up to speak in your name. She asked the council to deny the campus pro-life group the right to host a Silent No More Awareness Campaign because such an event is "systemized harassment that should not be tolerated." In her mind, such an event displays a level of discrimination akin to intolerant White Supremacist groups. She then went on to accuse the pro-life group of refusing to show up at meetings to discuss previous harassment complaints for intolerant behavior. The worst part of all this my friend? It's that the pro-life group had no idea such a motion was even going to come before the Council, so they were not there to defend themselves. They had to find out when they read the campus newspaper. Such terrible allegations were printed for all the campus community to read, with the pro-life group given no change to respond.

Had they been given a chance, you can be assured they would have explained that first and foremost, a university campus is to be a tolerant place where different ideas and viewpoints can be discussed in a calm reasoned matter, without calling groups names and casting aspersions on their character. They then would have stated that they were aware of the complaints, and that they made every effort to set up a mutually agreeable meeting time, but that their e-mails were sometimes not responded to, and that as far as they know, no meeting was ever set, so how could they possibly have failed to show up? And finally, they would have said that they are guaranteed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You see where this is going don't you my friend? This group is being accused of intolerant behavior, when really, it is the people who are trying to shut them down that are intolerant. In their world, people with dissenting opinions have no place speaking out. Instead of dealing directly with the arguments, the forces that oppose them cry out in your name that these groups are intolerant, bigoted and even racist. What happened to the marketplace of ideas?

Oh Tolerance, I fear that until you return to claim your rightful place back, Intolerance will rule and dissenters will be shut down. Please come back soon; I realize now that growing up, I didn't realize how lucky I was to have you protecting me. I miss you.

Most sincerely yours,

Sarah, a Catholic Law Student

P.S.- When you come, please ask Honesty, Dignity and Respect to return with you. You have no idea how much we need all of you.

Autism and the Culture of Death

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I’m stunned; I really don’t know what to say after reading this article in the Daily Mail (UK) today. The title of the article says it all: “Why can't we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life”

The author of the article, Carol Sarler recounts the story of her friends, Cath and John and their son Tom, who is autistic. According to Sarler everyone who comes in contact with Tom, including Tom himself has their life destroyed. She outlines how Tom’s autism affects his parents, grandparents and friends and comes to the conclusion that everyone, including Tom would be better off if Tom had never been born. Don’t take it from me; read her final words:

“But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom's had been a life unlived?
Unequivocally, yes”

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it’s the same argument that is used to advocate for euthanasia, assisted suicide, sex-selected and eugenic abortions. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by this. Autism is yet another condition that makes some people “different” and because they are different and don’t fit our preconceived notions of how humans should function, we are all better off if they don’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t want to trivialize the difficulties that parents with autistic children face; I am sure it is hard, but just because something is hard doesn’t mean that we need to destroy it. What I find even more disturbing about the article is that the author is advocating for a pre-natal test for autism that would allow children suspected of having autism to be aborted. We already have a test like that for Down’s syndrome. The result is that 90% of fetus’s suspected of having Down’s are aborted. But then, what can you expect when people like Ms. Sarler think children with autism are better of never having been born.

I’ve always thought that before you can debate someone, you need to understand their perspective and try to see where they are coming from, but try as I might I cannot wrap my head around the idea that any person is better off never having lived. How can you say that? To say that is to say that existence is unimportant and to deny beauty of life in all its forms.
What perhaps worries me the most is the comments found at the end of the article. Most are supportive of the article. Those who were not supportive generally liked the idea of a genetic test for autism. The comments that speak about the sacredness of life and how every life is worth living are few and far between, and the voting system on the comments generally shows those comments to be viewed negatively by other readers.

It’s so very sad that this is the level our society has come down to. God have mercy on us all.

92% of Canadians Don’t Know the Law

… on abortion that is. According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 92% of Canadians don't know that abortion is legal over the whole 9 months of pregnancy in Canada. (Read the story here.)Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me in the least. Most people I've spoken to about abortion don't believe me when I say there is no law on abortion in Canada, and that Canada is the only country in world that has no law on abortion. The pro-choicers I'm speaking with generally come back with a story about a woman they know who couldn't get an abortion because the doctor said he/she couldn't after 20/22/24 weeks. While those stories may be true (a lot of doctors refuse to do abortions after 20 weeks and especially after the child is viable), they don't change the fact that there is no law on abortion in Canada.

This poll also confirmed another suspicion I've had for some time- that Canadians don't want abortion to be available on demand for the entire 9 months of pregnancy. For example, only 6% of the poll's respondents believed a woman should be able to have an abortion of the child is of the sex they don't want (generally female children are targeted by sex-selected abortion). 95% of respondents felt women should be given full disclosure on all options available to them. And 95% said information about physical side effects of abortion should be given. 96% said information about the psychological effects of abortion should be given.

And yet, in Canada, sex selected abortions are legal. There is no law saying that a woman has to be informed of all her options. No law says information on physical and psychological effects of abortion need to be given. Many women who ask about side effects are told that abortion is completely harmless and that there will be no long lasting effects. They aren't told of the possible increased risk of breast cancer, or the danger to their future fertility. They aren't told that they can suffer significant psychological harm- such that they are at increased risk of suicide, depression and addiction.

And yet, a June 2008 poll by Angus Reid showed that 46% of Canadians are in favour of the legal status quo on abortion. What does this mean then? It seems to fly in the face of the results of this poll. I think it means a couple of things. First, Canadians are uniformed about abortion. We get so much of our news and entertainment from the US that in many cases we assume what's going on in the US must be what's going on in Canada. Second, it means that the pro-life movement in Canada needs to step it up. We need to get information out there so people know what the law is. An uniformed public is the greatest danger unborn children face because the uninformed will vote based on what they think is the law, not what is the law. Misinformation is a huge danger. 46% of Canadians favour the law on abortion (meaning no law) staying the same, and yet 92% don't know what the law is.

We can win the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Canadians if we simply inform them. The pro-life movement has science on its side- we can prove that the unborn is a human being. As a human being, the child is entitled to full human rights protections. The fact that the law currently allows for indiscriminate killing of human life is a violation of human rights. If we simply present the facts, we can, at the very least, get people thinking. If they start thinking, they will start talking to others, and in that way, lives can be saved.

In Canada 300 children are aborted per day (Stats Can figures). 92% of Canadians don't know the law around why they are aborted. It's time to start speaking out everyone. I challenge you- every time you talk to someone about abortion, ask them if they know the law. If they say they do, ask them what they think it is. If they are wrong, (politely) inform them of the truth. Here's a quick summary of the legal status of abortion in Canada:

• Until 1969 abortion was illegal in Canada; then the Criminal Code was changed to allow abortion when it threatened the health of the mother, but a legislative scheme was enacted to require any woman wanting an abortion to see a panel of doctors who would determine if the pregnancy threatened her health
  
• In 1988, R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada; in this 5-4 decision the court struck down the 1969 Criminal Code provision on abortion as unconstitutional because it violated the mother's s. 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person
  
• This decision wiped out the only law in Canada on abortion, making it so that there is no law in Canada on abortion
  
• There have been no laws enacted on abortion since the 1969 provision was struck down; there is no law on abortion in Canada.

Be not Afraid

As Catholics, we are called to be salt of the earth and light to the world, but so often we fail at this. We fail to speak out and up for the poor and vulnerable. I know that I have. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've thought "I should say something" but I haven't. Generally, it's out of fear- fear for what others will think, or fear of how it will reflect on my academic career. But I've begun to realize just how important it is to speak up; how powerful my voice can be. Society doesn't want us to speak up or speak out on the basis of values and principles, which is why it is so happy when we don't out of fear. The greatest fear of the people who are pushing us down the road to immorality in our society is that we will speak out. They know that voices have power.

I asked myself why people don't speak out- why are we so afraid. And the best answer I can come to is that we have very few examples of people speaking out. We should be able to turn to the church for examples, and solid pro-life clergy, especially at the higher levels are few and far between. I don't mean to accuse the clergy of not being pro-life; I am sure many are, but they seem to be just as afraid to speak out as the laity.

We are a church founded out of the greatest act of love and sacrifice the world has ever seen. Jesus didn't stay silent when things were wrong. Jesus lived his life boldly, and should provide us with the only example we need. As Catholics, we know that persecution is a part of life. We know that the road isn't an easy one, but that's no reason not to walk it. We are called to holiness, and called to be saints. Well, the fact is, many saints were martyred. They believed so strongly that they were willing to give up life itself. We are called to do nothing less.

So, where are the clergy in all this? Until the recent American election, I'd rarely heard priests and bishops speak out on pro-life issues. While I can't claim to have read every speech and pronouncement of every priest and bishop, until the recent election, I'd only ever heard 2 members of the clergy speak out on pro-life issues. The first is Bishop Fredrick Henry of Calgary; the second is Father Michael Bedard of Saskatoon. And I thank both men for having the courage to speak and teach the church's teachings. But, I wonder, where are the rest of the clergy?

Apparently I'm not the only one who has asked that question. That hit home today when I read a speech made by Tom Wappel to Catholic Clergy. Tom Wappel is a recently retired Liberal MP. Tom is also Catholic and pro-life. He is a long-time member, and former co-chair, of the Parliamentary Pro-Life caucus. He was an MP for twenty years and says he can essentially count on one hand then number of times he was asked to speak on life issues (his passion) to a group of Catholics. He said he never, in twenty years, heard from a member of the clergy above the rank of Monsignor. And then he posed a very good question, "Well, why should we be [speaking about life issues] if no one else is? Why should we be knocking our heads against a brick wall if no one is noticing, if no one is listening, if no one is offering encouragement, or appears not to be offering encouragement." That's not just directed at clergy, it's directed at ALL of us who claim to be pro-life.

At the end of his speech, he offered a list of 13 things that he thinks parishes should be doing to be more pro-life, and I think they are all great suggestions. They are directed at the parish priest, but many of them can be implemented by members of the laity who are involved in their parishes, so I'd suggest everyone take a look at them, and if you are active in your parish, propose some of them. If you aren't active, maybe it's time you ask yourself why; and then get involved. Because if you are too busy to speak for the vulnerable, who will?

Please don't get me wrong, I love the church, and I love her priests. I know that they are all busy men who work long hours offering the sacraments, acting as hospital chaplains, running a parish and a million other things. But I'm not asking them to take anything more on; I'm just asking them to teach what the church teaches to the parishioners. Many of them only show up once a week for an hour on Sundays (some even less often than that). But in that hour, the priest has an amazing opportunity to speak to them. We need to stop worrying about whether they will return the next week if they don't like the message. That's not what's important. What is important is Truth. People will hate the church, or leave the church or disagree with the church for many reasons. We can't stop that, but at least if the priests preach on ALL the church's teachings, they know what they are turning their back on. Then, the decision is theirs; and the priest has done his job.

I'm sure that drafting a homily is not an easy thing to do; trying to come up with something that all ages and vocations will get something from. And I know you don't want to be graphic with little children in the audience. But there are ways to discuss pro-life issues with children present. Seeing our clergy courageously speak for life will embolden all of us, and reinforce the teachings of the church. The clergy should lead us all, should teach us all, so please, SPEAK. Use the voice and opportunity you have been given.

And, laity- when your priest does speak on life issues; THANK-HIM; not just after mass, but write him a letter. Write the bishop a letter congratulating the priest. We are all quick to complain when we don't like something, but how often do we praise people when we do? If I (and you) am afraid sometimes to speak out, think about what the priest must be feeling as he stands before the congregation to preach. Give our priests some encouragement, so they can embolden us. As JPII reminded us "Be not afraid." Speak up for those who have no voice. And, always, always, pray for our clergy and pray for our MP's. The moment we stop praying is the moment we lose this battle.

Valley View Centre

I began today feeling like I was back in kindergarten because we were going on a field trip. I'd mocked the trip, and tried to think up a dozen ways to get out if it so I wouldn't have to waste my Friday. But in the end, I could come up with no compelling excuse not to go, so like a good little student I showed up at 7:30 this morning to embark on a trip to Moose Jaw. And I'm glad I did.

While I could say a lot about my Law and Disability class (and I have) it has been a really good class to get me thinking and considering ideas and viewpoints I've never considered before, especially around the area of disability. It, more than any other class I've taken at law school has made me re-evaluate how I view others, and to broaden my understanding of being "pro-life." Our field trip today was to the Valley View Center in Moose Jaw, SK. The VVC is one of the few remaining institutional care homes left in Canada for persons with cognitive disabilities. See the Saskatchewan Government Fact Sheet here.

As we approached the facility, I had no idea what to expect; my prof hadn't told us much about the facility, except to mention that there was controversy over its very existence. Some organizations want nothing more than to see it shut down because they view any form of institutional living as a violation of human rights. The Friends of Valley View want to keep it open, and the reason my prof gave was because it is home to the residents who live there, and moving somewhere else would be traumatizing to them.

We were told at the very start of the visit that the VVC allows very few visitors in because it is the home of the residents, and just as you and I wouldn't want a bunch of strangers to suddenly walk into our home, they wouldn't want it either. That really hit home to me. They broke us up into groups of two or three to see the facility, and I was amazed by it. As the staff member who showed me around pointed out, the VVC is its own little community with every service you could imagine available on site for the benefits of the residents; a doctor's office, dentist, even a barber shop/beauty salon.

What stood out to me as we saw VVC was, first, just how big the place was. Currently there are just under 250 residents, but at its peak the VVC was home to over 1400 people. However, all the residents I met seemed very happy and very content. The people who work at the VVC are very friendly, and obviously care a lot for the residents. As we walked around, we were told of the huge culture shift the VVC has undergone, even in the last few decades. The current model and vision statement is "living life to the fullest," and based on what I saw, the VVC is doing a wonderful job of that. They are trying to make the place a home, not an institution, despite the solid concrete walls everywhere. The homes have been personalized with photos and drawings, and they are currently preparing for Christmas by decorating. It seemed like every second verbal resident I met was asking about when the Christmas Party was- it seems to be the event on the social calendar that everyone is looking forward to.

Leaving the VVC, I don't have a problem with the institution being open. The people who live there are cared for and loved, and the people who work there genuinely seem to enjoy their jobs. And I can certainly see the argument of the Friends of Valley View that it is a home for people, and it's not right to take that from them. But I also understand the other side; our culture has shifted, and we no longer believe that institutionalizing people is the best way to do things. Living in the community is better for all involved. My prof called the current situation a "détente"- neither side is really talking about the other side, and the idea at present seems to be let everyone who lives there be, but no new residents will be accepted. That means in a few decades the centre will close, simply because there are no more residents left.

I found myself thinking about the centre, and people with intellectual disabilities specifically on the ride home. While there is definitely an economic argument to made for institutional living, an economic argument can also be made for group home living as well. But economics isn't everything, and I think that as the culture of death continues to pervade this world, we need to have people with disabilities living and working in the greater community just so we can all learn that they are people as well, people who deserve the full protection of human rights. When we talk about assisted suicide and euthanasia, and also the termination of unborn children with "defects" we are talking about discrimination on the basis of disability. The more that people interact with people with disabilities of all types, the better equipped we will all be to be citizens. People with disabilities are no more different from "normal" people than black people are from white people, or women are from men. Yes, there are differences in our abilities, but we all have something to offer to the world, and we should all be allowed to offer it to the world. No one should be hidden away because they are "different," but at the same time, we have to make accommodations for the differences to enable everyone to live the fullest life they can. Funny, that's also the VVC's vision statement. In a perfect world, the residents of the VVC wouldn't have to live there to get the love and care they do; it's something we would all provide in the greater society as a whole.

Too bad the whole culture of death and viewing people as burdens gets in the way.

The Death of Free Speech in Canada

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the problem of university campuses denying pro-life groups club status. Today's post is about a new twist on the denial of free speech on university campuses. The University of Calgary is threatening to arrest or sanction members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) group next week when they bring GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) to the U of C. GAP is a graphic visual display comparing abortion to other genocides around the world by showing pictures of aborted children, and pictures of other genocides around the world. The U of C says that CPL can only display the GAP boards if they face them inward so no one can see them unless they choose to walk into the circle. Read the full story here. However, the U of C doesn't make any other group turn its display boards inward. Several local media outlets have picked up this story, including the Calgary Herald who wrote an editorial on the issue.

The U of C is denying the members of CPL their Charter right to freely express their opinion. CPL has done the GAP project before, but it has always been a peaceful display. That hasn't stopped the U of C from claiming that the display might insight violence, and that is reason enough to shut it down. University campuses are supposed to be a bastion of free speech, but if my 6 years on campus has taught me anything, it's that free speech is only allowed if it is speech that the campus administrators approve of. If they don't approve, it's no longer free speech, it's hate speech. And, shocking, that's exactly what the U of C is claiming.

If the U of C is truly pro-choice (not pro-abortion) then they should have no problem with a display that shows the consequences of abortion. However, you and I both know that pro-choice really means pro-abortion in the world today, but pro-choice is a less charged term than pro-abortion. It's as though they do not trust the students, faculty and staff of the U of C to actually evaluate the issue of abortion. What are they afraid of if people see this display? Yes, it is graphic, but the truth often is. The U of C is a public institution, funded by taxpayer dollars. As such, they are bound by the Charter, and their students have the right to free speech that they do not have the right to censor.

I want to congratulate all the members of CPL who believe so much in the duty to protect the unborn that they are willing to face arrest and possible academic sanctions. That is a courageous action, and an action that will increasingly need to be taken if campuses continue down the path of denying free speech. May God Bless them and give them the strength they need next week to stand up for free speech, and more importantly the unborn.

Thank-you St. Thomas!

The postings on this blog have been melancholy and even negative since the American Election, but I am happy to link to some wonderful news for the pro-life movement. A Serbian abortionist, Dr. Stojan Adasevic, responsible for 48,000 abortions over 26 years has recanted his pro-abortion position, and become a leader in the Serbian pro-life movement!

This change of heart was brought about by his re-conversion to the Orthodox faith, and a series of dreams. In the first dream, he saw children playing and laughing in a beautiful field, but they ran away from him in fear. There was a man, dressed in a black and white habit staring at him. He told Dr. Adasevic that he was Thomas Aquinas, and that the children were those that he had aborted. Educated in communist schools, Dr. Adasevic had no idea who Aquinas was. The next day, Dr. Adasevic was faced with a woman who came in for her 9^th abortion (in former Soviet countries, abortion is a method of birth control). When he performed the abortion, the child's heart came out still beating. At that point he realized he'd killed a human being.

From that point on, he refused to perform any more abortions, resulting in his salary being cut in half, his daughter losing her job and his son being prevented from attending university. A few years later, after much pressure from the government, he was about to give up, when he had another dream. St. Thomas told him he was doing a good job and needed to keep going. After that, he joined the pro-life movement and has been instrumental in bringing the truth about abortion to Serbia.

Dr. Adasevic has also begun to read the writings of St. Thomas, and has pointed out that influenced by Aristotle (and the lack of science in his day), St. Thomas felt human life began 40 days after fertilization. He thinks that this might be St. Thomas's way of making up for that error.

I think that this is an absolutely beautiful story of conversion, and while Dr. Adasevic will always have to live with the knowledge that he took 48,000 lives, like St. Paul, he is trying to make amends for the evil he has done by speaking out against it. My prayers are with him, and I ask you all to join in praying for doctors around the world who perform abortions; that they may learn the truth of what they are doing and repent. And while we are at it, let's ask St. Thomas to pray for them as well.

Read the story here.

A Sad Day for the Unborn

Sorry this post is late- I just got home from watching the election results. Today the American people elected Barak Obama as their president. That is their right; he won in a democratic election. However, in making that choice, they also turned their back on the unborn and the vulnerable. I fear that President-elect Obama will pass measures, especially the Freedom of Choice Act. I fear that many laws already passed to protect the unborn will be repealed. I fear that millions more will be aborted. For that, I am greatly saddened.

America has long been a beacon of hope in the world, standing proud, ready to defend the ideals upon which she was founded. Tonight, I feel that beacon was diminished- diminished because of all those lives that will never be lived as a direct result of policies Obama will sign into law. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I fear that America tonight took its first step closer to the Canadian system and situation.

But that is not a reason to lose heart- it needs to be a wakeup call for everyone working for the cause of life. Don't let this night make you think the cause is hopeless, because it isn't. There are many, many things that we can still do, and that we must do to save as many lives as possible.

May God bless America on this dark night tonight. May God bless the whole world, and give strength to all who fight to bring His word to the world.

Goodnight.

Politics of Pregnancy

In an attempt to avoid working on my paper tonight (the doorbell won't stop ringing) I watched some TV; specifically a channel from California. It seems like every second commercial is either Vote Yes or Vote No on one of the many propositions Californians get to vote on Tuesday. The commercials between the proposition ones are for or against specific politicians. Political junkie that I am, I'm actually enjoying these commercials far more than the regular ones, but I digress.

The one that hit me tonight was the one for "Vote No on Prop 4." Prop 4 is known as "Sarah's Law" and if passed would amend the California constitution to require parents be notified if their daughter wants to have an abortion. See the commercial here. What struck me about it was the language used about pregnancy. The mother in the commercial says if her daughter got pregnant "I would be there for her to help her through that difficult time." While some may consider it subtle, that commercial seems to give pregnancy a very negative context. That has happened a lot lately. For example, Obama stated that if either of his daughters ended up pregnant, he wouldn't want to "punish them with a baby."

Since when is pregnancy a punishment? Or a difficult time? Shouldn't we view pregnancy as the beautiful process that brings a new life into the world? I know that a pregnancy can be an uncomfortable time for the mother (at least that's what my friends who are/have been pregnant have said), but it's certainly not a punishment. Generally people refer to pregnancy as a punishment when it was unplanned (usually in an outside of marriage context) but doesn't that just go to show how our culture has devalued sex? Let's face it; the natural result of sex is pregnancy. If we start calling pregnancy a punishment, then what are we saying about human sexuality? I think the true problem is that we have divorced conception from sex, and until our society reintegrates the two, abortion will be commonplace.

Personally, I much prefer Sarah Palin's response, calling an unplanned pregnancy a blessing. While the couple (or woman) may not have been ready to have the child, I believe that pregnancy will have a positive impact in their lives, if they give it a chance. The only punishment in a pregnancy is if the baby is aborted; and then, the punishment is visited on the innocent child.

All in all, I'm happy that this discussion is at least happening in the United States. There is a clear choice between the culture of life and the culture of death in their election, and several states have propositions on life and death issues on the ballot. I hope and pray that the people of the United States endorse life, but I am so proud of our neighbor to the south for at least having this discussion. In Canada, we seem to be far more apathetic. Not only were life issues non-existent in Canada's recent election, PM Stephan Harper said the issue wasn't even to be discussed. As long as abortion is permitted, pregnancy will be seen as a punishment, and another 2000 babies a week (in Canada alone- Stats Can 2004) will die from abortion.

I hope and pray that the culture of life triumphs over death on Tuesday, but most of all, I wish politicians would remember that they are elected by the people and should serve the people. Some of those people are the unborn. Since 1973, when the Roe decision was made, over 50 million Americans have been aborted. 25 million of those Americans would be eligible to vote on Tuesday. I wonder what difference their votes would make.

Pro-life Campus Groups

UPDATE (Oct 31 3:20pm): I just received an e-mail saying the same thing has happened at the University of Victoria. See here for the story. If you would like to contact them to express your displeasure, here's the information:

UVic Students' Society
University of Victoria
PO Box 3035 STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 3P
Ph: (250) 472-4317
Fax: (250) 472-4851
alma@uvic.ca

It's happening again. University campuses, which are supposed to be bastions of free speech, are attempting to silence opinions that they don't agree with. On 21 October 2008 the University of Guelph's Central Student Association (CSA) refused to allow Guelph's pro-life club, Life Choice campus club status. See here for the original story. Yesterday, after almost 5h of debate, the CSA put the motion over for another week. Not only did they not make a decision, the CSA felt the atmosphere in the room was "unsafe" and moved its members to an in-camera session to finish the debate.

Life Choice was denied club status on the basis of last year's "Life Fair." It was alleged that "people had been harassed physically and handed offensive literature at the Life Fair." However, the life fair was last March, and the club was never made aware of complaints- at least, not until the CSA yanked their club status. See here for info on last night's meeting.

I encourage everyone to write to the CSA and express your feelings at this denial of free speech.

Central Student Association
Room 274, University Centre
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
phone: 519-824-4120 ext. 56748
email: csatalk@uoguelph.ca

The pro-lifers at Guelph are facing the same battle that many other campuses have fought- McGill, York, Carleton and Capilano to name just a few. Always, the allegations are the same- essentially that the club's very existence offends the student union's rules around women's fundamental right to make their own choices. This is garbage, and we all know it. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives every Canadian the right to free speech. These clubs are simply exercising their right to free speech and association- a right that was upheld (shockingly) by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. While a Human Rights Tribunal carries no precedential value, a quasi-judicial body has upheld the right of pro-life clubs to exist on university campuses. And yet, despite that, University Student Unions feel they have the right to muzzle free speech on their campuses. That is wrong.

The expression of pro-life views is not hate speech.

The expression of pro-life views is not intolerance.

The expression of pro-life views does not violate women's rights.

The expression of pro-life views merely gives the unborn a voice. Isn't giving a voice to the vulnerable an action that should be supported?

Abortion is not a legal right in Canada, no matter what anyone argues. It is a practice that has absolutely NO laws governing it; one way or the other. Speech around abortion can never violate the law because there is no law. Thankfully my pro-life group has never had to face a challenge to its club status, but my prayers are with Guelph Life Choice's members and all people who advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

All of us have a duty to speak out whenever free speech is muzzled, because if we don't, one day it we will be muzzled, and there will be no one there to save us. Please take a few minutes to contact the CSA and local Guelph papers. If we don't speak, who will?