More than a year before Health Minister Anne McLellan introduced the Orwellian-named An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction, Campaign Life Coalition was busy working with MPs and educating the public about experimental technologies surrounding stem cells. We must still make it clear: we favour stem cell research that is ethical, namely research on stem cells that does not require the destruction of a tiny human being, whether it be the human at the embryonic or fetal stage. Adult stem cells, taken from a variety of sources - umbilical cord blood, skin, bone marrow, etc... - have either been used successfully for 20 years (such as bone marrow transplants) or are much more promising than embryonic stem cells.

In the past few months, knowing that the legislation could come before the House at any time, we have been extremely busy working with MPs and their staffs to help them (and ourselves) to better understand the complex science and ethics of this exciting new medical technology. We had to hire additional staff for the Public Affairs Office in Ottawa to assist in this effort, and even then the workload does not seem to have abated. We have urged you, our grassroots supporters, to contact your local MPs to state your moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research and inform them about ethical alternatives to it, such as the establishment of a special umbilical cord blood bank that would store all newborns' umbilical cord blood for a rich, ethical source of stem cells for future treatment. We have also distributed both a Catholic and Protestant sermon on this issue to more than 2000 clergy. Bill C-13 (formerly Bill C-56) is, as CLC National Organizer Mary Ellen Douglas has explained many times, the most important legislation we have had to deal with since the Omnibus Bill of 1969, which legalized abortion on demand. If stem cell research is allowed, a pandora's box of ethical horrors will be opened as scientists will demand a never-ending source of stem cells; they will demand that any limits on the research be lifted and that any source be mined for their stem cells: so-called leftover embryos from IVF treatments, the remains from abortions, the creation of clones.

As we went to press, the bill had been amended by the Standing Committee on Health and sent back to the House for a vote, which is expected early in February. One of the amendments actually made the bill worse by inserting a stipulation that "persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status." This makes the bill a tool, not only of the researchers seeking to do the cloning and embryonic stem cell research, but of the homosexual community to have their unions legally recognized as the equivalent of legitimate marriage. More importantly, the amendments fail to grant any protection to the embryonic human. We must redouble our efforts and we can't do it without you!

Despite the media hype over the supposed miracles that embryonic stem cells could provide in the way of treatments and cures, John Gearhart, one of the world's foremost embryonic stem cell scientists, admitted that "I am not sure these cells are going to be used in therapies." Gearhart, director of research for Johns Hopkins University's Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, speaking at a National Human Genome Research Institute conference, said that while cures may not be possible, man can still "use the information we get out of this research to get the patient's own cells and work with them to get them to do what we want. This is really where I see the future now." CLC Medical Consultant Dr. John Shea said Gearhart's statement is likely "a covert admission that the promises made of the wonders to come from embryonic stem cells were false and foolish ... they are probably beginning to face the fact that they will not be able to overcome the rejection problem with embryonic stem cells." Another possible explanation is, as some of us suggested when this research was first made public in 1998, that the goal was never treatment and cure but research on human genetics with the goal of manipulating various characteristics. This sounds like a eugenics program designed to create a perfect race of people free of physical problems by eliminating the disabled or otherwise "imperfect", so it is no wonder that they are trying to sell such experimentation in more socially acceptable terms of curing or treating diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's. CLC has informed the MPs of Gearhart's admission.

After 18 months and tens of millions of dollars spent "studying" the issue, the one-man (Roy) Romanow Commission issued its (his) report: The Romanow Report on Health Care in Canada.

For the past year-and-a-half and throughout the report and its presentation, Romanow, Saskatchewan's former NDP premier, trumpeted the consultation process. But the fact is, during coast-to-coast hearings, pro-life people and organizations were systematically eliminated from the consultation process despite numerous attempts to contact the commission. As a result, Romanow did not look at, nor consider, the one area where health care dollars could be saved and a health commitment to patients could be accomplished: the defunding of abortion. CLC National President Jim Hughes said in a press release, "A procedure which is not medically necessary, which kills a human being and causes long range complications to the second patient is fully funded by medical plans in each province. I refer to the life style choice of abortion." After all, as we all know, abortion is not medically necessary; even its advocates refer to abortion as "choice."

At an average of $607 for the abortion procedure itself - with follow-up medical attention, Catholic Insight editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk estimated in 1995 that the cost per abortion to the taxpayer was double that - and with at least 110,000 abortions committed annually in Canada, defunding abortion would result in a savings of roughly $70 million - and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We must also calculate the psychiatric complications for women who endure the procedure and the counseling required, often many years later. Furthermore, there are numerous health effects ranging from pelvic infections, perforated uteruses and other immediate complications to problems that may not be noticed (infertility) or develop (breast cancer) until many years later.

Karen Murawsky, Director of the CLC Public Affairs Office in Ottawa said that the federal government should direct the defunding of abortion and spend Canadian Health Care dollars on support for pregnant women and their families. "If a woman distressed by a pregnancy were given viable counseling to assist her in carrying her child to term, not only would the costs be lower but countless lives would be saved," she said.

Health Minister Gary Mar ignored the wishes of the majority of Albertans when he recently directed an expert panel examaning non-essential medical services that it is not to look at abortion funding. According to a Leger Marketing poll released in October, 72% of Albertans want abortions de-insured (except those done in medical emergencies or for rape and incest). Mar has thumbed his nose at the taxpaying voters as he refuses to consider the defunding of 10,000 Alberta abortions (including 3,000 "repeat abortions") each year. We wonder, however, why set up the expert panel at all if the Health Minister is going to unilaterally decide what can and cannot be considered? It is a shame but it is also illustrative. Abortion is not like other "health services": it always gets extra special treatment, like being taken off the table for consideration of defunding by the health minister. Maintaining abortion funding is about ideology and politics, not health.

More than 100 parliamentarians from 70 countries descended on Ottawa in November for a meeting whose agenda was nothing less than the promotion of abortion disguised under such terms as safeguarding women's reproductive rights, improving access to reproductive health services (including family planning), reducing maternal mortality and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Call it what you want, these parliamentarians want more abortion. At the end of the Ottawa meeting, the lawmakers signed a Statement of Commitment, outlining specific actions they will take in their countries to promote "reproductive health and rights and move the Cairo agenda forward." It is strange to consider the promotion of abortion a step "forward," but such was the mentality of the UN Cairo conference in 1994 which essentially claimed that overpopulation is a such an urgent crisis that a suitable solution was determined to be the elimination of people.

The keynote address was given by Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). She was outraged that the U.S. has called for renegotiation of the Cairo Programme of Action so that it would not include the promotion of abortion. She also criticized President Bush's decision to withhold funding from her organization because of its support for China's forced abortion and coercive sterilization. Speaking about pro-life and religious groups who oppose the radical abortion agenda of population control advocates, Obaid said: "These groups claim to oppose abortion ... My friends, we must not allow a very small but very determined and vocal group of ideologues to reverse progress for women and dilute international human rights and the Cairo consensus." Obaid called for increased global access to abortion despite the fact there are an estimated 50 million abortions committed worldwide each year (not including chemical abortions).

To that goal, the parliamentarians signed onto commitments to: strive to attain 5-10% of national development budgets for population and reproductive health programmes; give high priority to achieving universal access to reproductive health services; promote the reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity and of unsafe abortion as a public health priority and as a reproductive rights concern (this excuse to expand abortion is based on the lie that abortion is inherently safer than childbirth); make every effort to achieve universal access to reproductive health services and commodities by the year 2015. The group is planning to meet again in 2004.

CLC attempted to attend the conference through numerous channels (as observers, media, etc...) but the pro-abortionists wouldn't have it. There was quite a bit of secrecy, especially considering that meetings were hosted and chaired by (among others) junior Canadian ministers Jean Augustine, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, and David Kilgour, Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific (and who has always been considered pro-life) and Canadian senators Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Daniel Hays and Lucie Pepin. Why is the government supporting an initiative to increase abortion globally? We don't remember them making abortion rights a major plank in their re-election platform. Why is abortion being so vigorously promoted? And why are they not held accountable for doing so? Few media outlets cared to cover the proceedings (although, perhaps, they too were turned away, considering the abortion radicals probably do not want their strategies discovered) and the opposition has been silent on the issue. We demand the government cease their support of these elite gatherings and consult the public and parliament about what course of action Canada should follow in the international arena. With the problems faced by people in various parts of the world, we find it ludicrous that the Chretien government has given abortion such a priority.

The November 27 National Post front-page headline screamed that 78% of Canadians approve of abortion. The poll, conducted by COMPASS and commissioned by the Post, asked several questions on freedom of the body. About abortion they asked: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?" Based on the small sample of only 608 people, they concluded that "four out of five Canadians or 78% believe women should have complete free choice in the matter." But as we have seen many times, the wording of a polling question can greatly impact on the answer given. When you focus on the rights of the woman, as opposed to the child, people generally give pro-abortion answers. The Post's poll results are not in line with other abortion related polls. In October, a Leger Marketing poll (reported in the December Interim) showed that a majority of Canadians oppose the abortion status quo of no law on the issue that permits abortion at any time, for any reason, at taxpayer expense. A Gallup poll conducted in December 2001 asked the question "do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what circumstances?" The result was that 32% of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 52% thought abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances and 14% thought abortion should be illegal. The Post's numbers are a complete reversal, which is to be expected considering the less nuanced approach of the question. More important, however, is the fact that abortion is wrong regardless of the poll numbers: no majority can make this terrible injustice to the unborn, right. All the polls in the world will not justify the murder of an innocent person.

Two recent studies once again show the dangers of contraceptive pills to women. A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute of more than 2,600 women in 11 countries found that women with the BRCAI gene mutation who took oral contraceptives 25 years ago faced a 33%-42% increased lifetime risk of getting breast cancer. This merely confirms research that we have long known about and previously reported. The risk is increased for women who take the birth control pill at a young age. The dangers are so great, Dr. Steven A. Narod, chairman of breast cancer research at the Centre for Research on Women's Health at the University of Toronto, said that young women should use other forms of birth control. (Why not urge them to abstain from sex or let them know about natural family planning?)

Another study - this one to be published in the American Journal of Epidemiology later this year - shows that women who use the birth control pill and Depo-Provera could be at a greatly increased risk of infection for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Researchers from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., found that the hormone progesterone, which is used in the abortifacients, impairs the immune system's ability to fight viral infections. The study, performed on mice, found that the risk of HIV infection was 100 times greater in animals given progesterone compared to those that did not receive the hormone.

All this indicates that contraceptive advocates are putting women at risk of increased health problems by promoting a sexual promiscuity agenda. Furthermore, the birth control pill is abortifacient because it often works by making the uterine wall inhospitable to the tiny human embryo which then dies of starvation. This latest research on the pill shows that it often has two victims: women and unborn children

The New Brunswick College of Physicians and Surgeons has ruled that doctors are not obliged to make referrals if they consider the alternative treatment to be immoral - provided they give an explanation "as to why a physician is declining to provide the service or treatment requested."

The guidelines, published in the college's November bulletin reaffirm that doctors can refuse treatments and procedures if they believe them to be morally wrong - just as patients can refuse any treatment they themselves find repugnant. It is certainly nice to see part of the medical establishment stand up for the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.

Reacting to this good news, Judy Burwell of Morgentaler's Fredericton abortuary, said it is a shame that women may not get "birth control" and "an abortion" from their doctors, or at least a referral to where they can obtain them (to their lucrative private abortuary, no doubt). Burwell complained, "If you're not going to provide women with what they need, where are they going to get it?" It is shameful to suggest that what women "need' is abortion and that this is the most important healthcare priority.

Three members of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus (PPLC), representing the major political parties, sent an open letter to abortionist Henry Morgentaler. Signed by MPs Tom Wappel (Liberal), Elsie Wayne (Progressive Conservative) and Maurice Vellacott (Canadian Alliance), the PPLC criticized Morgentaler's attack on Manitoba Health Minister Dave Chomiak after Morgentaler accused Chomiak of allowing his own religious views to dictate his refusal to negotiate the purchase of the abortionist's Winnipeg facility. The letter stated, "Morgentaler seems to be completely out of touch with modern scientific and medical research and, hence, blames any opposition to abortion on religion - something that he, an acknowledged Humanist, scorns." CLC Manitoba President Maria Slykerman confirms that Chomiak, while a Catholic, has never brought up religious reasons for not purchasing the Morgentaler abortuary. But as the PPLC members noted, "What is wrong with being a religious person, whether in private or public life? After all, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

In the last CLC National News we reported on the exciting development in the House of Commons that would have all private members' bills and motions deemed votable. But on December 10, the Liberal MPs on the House procedure committee - apparently at the behest of Chretien's handpicked government House leader Don Boudria - reversed themselves. The committee had agreed to give up its tight-fisted control of deeming what private members' business was votable (and even then, it was subject to manipulation from the Prime Minister's Office) and agreed to reforms. However, Carolyn Parrish, the recently installed vice-chair of the procedure committee, put forward the motion that killed the democratic reform. (Ironically, she became vice chair because of another reform agreed to at the same time, the secret ballot election of committee chairs.) The National Post reports Parrish didn't want "bills on issues that have already been dealt with." Considering that the mantra from the top of the Liberal Party in recent years has been that abortion is a "settled" issue, presumably the powers that be didn't want the destruction of 115,000 tiny unborn babies annually to be embarrassingly brought before the House. The opposition Tories and Canadian Alliance vow to fight the reversal. P.C. House leader Loyola Hearn said "Everybody felt sure that we were making some stride towards some meagre parliamentary reform." With Chretien firmly ensconced in power, we will have to wait.

James Kopp, the suspect in jail on suspicion of shooting Bernard Slepian, has admitted to the Buffalo News that he shot, but never intended to kill, the Buffalo, New York abortionist. Although anyone vaguely familiar with the pro-life movement should know our commitment to a peaceful resolution to the abortion issue, we reiterate our condemnation of the shooting. Violence is not the answer to life's problems and we oppose it whether it is committed against the unborn child in the womb or the abortionist. We urge everyone, as we did when the shooting occurred four years ago, not to jump to conclusions but instead let the criminal justice system do its work. We also urge the media to cover the case fairly and not impugn the pro-life movement for the actions of one lone sniper. The pro-life movement has consistently said that violence is not the answer. After Kopp's admission, Joe Scheidler, President of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action, told LifeSite that killing an abortionist, "is the wrong thing to do, you can't kill abortionists ... its stupid. It really complicates matters. I'm shocked, surprised and disappointed. We convert abortionists, hundreds of them, that's how you solve this problem, through conversion."

January 22 marks the 30th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision permitting abortion on demand in the United States. To show our solidarity with our American pro-life brothers and sisters, CLC is joining the March for Life in Washington and hopes you will join us. We have a coach bus going down to Washington and tickets are just $75. We will be leaving from the Toronto office at 7:45 pm January 21 and returning 6 am on January 23. This requires just one day away from school or work, so please join us. For more information, call Gillian or Yoli at (416) 204-9749 or 1-800-730-5358.

Of course, we are also planning for our own March for Life and banquet in Ottawa, for Wednesday, May 14. There will also be other events held around that date including the candlelight vigil and a youth program. Mark it on your calender and plan to join us. Last year, more than 2000 pro-life Canadians took the time and made the effort to show Canadians that protection for the unborn child is a priority issue and that it cannot continue to be ignored.

We are getting calls from many people who have heard from their friends or read The Interim about the wonderful Creating a Culture of Life: International Forum, held in October with Life Canada and the International Right to Life Federation. We remind you that audio tapes of all the presentations are available. They also make wonderful gifts, so if you know someone who is pro-life who was unable to attend the conference, you should consider purchasing a tape (or a few of them). There were great international speakers, Rabbi Levin gave a powerful speech on morality in our time and Fr. Neuhaus spoke about the need to develop a culture of love. (The Fr. Neuhaus speech is also available on CD.) To order tapes, call Emma at (416) 204-9749 or 1-800-730-5358. Or see details and order form on www.lifesite.net.

The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, is celebrating its 20th anniversary this spring. They began publishing in our Queen Street offices in March 1983 and we were told it would never last. I urge you to join us for a celebratory dinner on Thursday, April 24. Details about the where (somewhere in or near Toronto ) and guest speaker (the organizers are guaranteeing it will be great) are still being ironed out, but tickets are $80 a person or $150 a couple. Mark the date on the calendar and look for details in the next issue of CLC National News or The Interim.

Yours for Life,
Jim Hughes