Dear Pro-lifers,

At the beginning of a long weekend this summer, I was asked to lead an intercessory before the start of an important strategy session. The theme was to be that of the homily given by the late Pope John Paul II at his inauguration and in particular his focus on “Be Not Afraid”.

Through many discussions with CLC staff and friends, I was reminded that some of our pro-life relatives and friends have almost given up fighting against the evil that, at times, seems to dominate our every waking moment. From murders and increased domestic violence, from the disappearance of young women where foul play is suspected to ‘gay marriage’, assisted suicide and euthanasia and the ongoing plight of the unborn through abortion, the air waves are full each day, and it is easy to become overwhelmed.

But, as we are reminded, there are over 300 references in sacred scripture encouraging us to ‘Be Not Afraid’. In everything we do, from our ordinary, mundane daily tasks, to the extraordinary challenges with which we are faced from time to time, we are reminded to put everything into God’s hands first and then Be Not Afraid to carry on – He will carry us through. He never fails us.

As for what else can be done about all that has been happening, by reading CLC publications and LifeSiteNews you will always be directed to necessary information and concrete actions that can make a great difference. We sadly recall that so much could have been prevented in the past had only many more Canadians believed what we reported and acted on what we recommended. Still, CLC is firmly convinced there are many opportunities for success if far more Canadians of good will finally start to take the required actions.

CLC warnings about particular social, moral and political developments have frequently been rejected over the years by many who should have been our allies, with the warnings always proven later to be completely true. For instance, our early involvement in the United Nations was ridiculed or harshly criticized even from within our own ranks, with some of the strongest critics much later seeing the reality and going to the UN themselves. To grassroots folks, professionals, political and especially church leaders, we emphasize that great and wonderful things can still, at this late hour, be accomplished - if only there is widespread commitment to do what must be done, without fear, skepticism or crippling pride and by trusting in God.

Now that summer is over for 2005 and our student interns have returned to their universities, colleges and high schools, it’s business as usual here at the downtown Toronto offices of CLC. The students did a lot of the work normally completed by regular staff and volunteers who had taken a much-needed break. We also used the opportunity to train the students in pro-life initiatives and provide them with the opportunity to hear presentations from Dr. Rob Walley, Alex Schadenberg and other pro-life leaders. Where would we be without our kids? They are our present, they are our future.

This Fall our challenge will be to find some additional volunteers to help with our continuing preparations for the next federal election campaign.

In addition, there is expected to be a massive campaign for assisted suicide and euthanasia as our Canadian society continues to reject the moral principles on which it was built.

In a recent poll by the Population Reference Bureau reported on in the Globe & Mail, the only western country with a replacement level birthrate is the U.S. Many demographers and social scientists warn about the impending population implosion but rarely do these studies and the various articles written about them refer to the single largest contributory factor, which is the contraceptive mentality. Occasionally, a writer will cite the abortion rate, but by and large it is shamefacedly ignored.

How on earth do you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of over 2 million of our unborn Canadian children in the womb will reap catastrophic results in the very near future? Go figure!

However, God is still in charge and we have complete trust in Him. We ask you to sustain our efforts with your prayers, and with your work on His behalf in encouraging our fellow Canadians to fight for what is right and just and true - and “Be Not Afraid” while doing so. May God grant success to our joint efforts.

I dislike having to ask for funds but our resources are dwindling and our financial commitments are ongoing and overwhelming. Please send us a donation today if you are able to assist us in this privileged, but enormous task before us.

God bless you for your prayers and for your sacrificial giving.

Yours for Life,
Jim Hughes
National President

Please donate

Despite the turmoil in which he has found himself for his outspokenness on same sex ‘marriage,’ Calgary Bishop Fred Henry continues to fight for the meaning of marriage and family, most recently in his July 31 Calgary Sun column. He warned that the erosion of the family poses real threats to the stability of Canadian society. Henry quotes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unity of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” Bishop Henry then noted: “The state has no authority to alter the fundamental meaning of marriage or to make the family a creature of the state.”

He described as a “distortion”, the argument that expanding the definition of marriage helps support the institution by including more people in it, saying that “No extension of terminology for legal purposes will change the reality only the committed union of a man and a woman carries, not only the bond of interdependency between the two adults, but the inherent capacity to bring forth children.” Bishop Henry warns that the very structure of Canadian society is at stake if this real meaning of family and its stabilizing influences on the lives of individuals, is lost.

Many Canadians are looking forward to the Fall session of Parliament and hoping for the eventual downfall of the Paul Martin Liberals, especially after the tumultuous Spring session in which the government looked like it would fall but ultimately survived after resorting to classic backroom deal-making and bribery. Unfortunately, all the talk in Conservative circles is “election readiness” which too often means running to the political centre and a focus on the only voters that count (in some people’s minds): urban, young and women voters. Thus we see Conservative leader Stephen Harper suggesting tax credits for transit users, a transparent attempt to buy Toronto voters and silence environmentalist criticism of the Tories.

Campaign Life Coalition National President Jim Hughes lamented that the supposedly conservative Tories “are trying to sound like small-l liberals and NDPers in Toronto, whereas those who are from other parts of the country where the Conservatives are strong are going to read about their tactics and wonder what’s going on.” Unfortunately for the Tories, the party may end up trading western and eastern Canadian votes, resulting in nothing more than closing the gap in the large cities, but being unable to win any more of these seats.

Harper’s Tories are soft-pedaling their conservatism most evidently on the social conservative front. We are convinced that Harper could have won the 2004 federal election if he had made marriage a major issue during the campaign. But he didn’t and he lost. We’ve heard about some candidates in the 2004 election being asked to provide the Conservative Party headquarters with their campaign literature before it was printed, where references to family issues, most notably the defense of traditional marriage, were removed.

Some parliamentarians have complained that Harper was offered many strategies to stall Bill C-38, possibly for several years and at least until after the next election, thereby allowing the groups and organizations working to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, more time to lobby the MPs and, perhaps, elect a pro-family majority to Parliament.

In March, at the Conservative convention in Montreal delegates followed Harper’s insistence and passed P-93, a motion that read: “A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.” (That said, 75% of the delegates supported the traditional definition of marriage.) Still, it seems that many in the party leadership will once again distance themselves from socially conservative views. Deputy leader Peter MacKay told The Hill newspaper, the party is “disciplined, moderate and forward looking with inclusive policies.” Those words are often code for a pro-abortion and pro-gay agenda.

CLC is warning supporters not to be fooled by Harper’s purported “social conservatism,” including his promise to revisit the same-sex ‘marriage’’ issue if the Conservatives win the next election: “The Conservative party is attempting to further mire themselves in the mushy middle, instead of coming out with strong conservative policies that will actually attract voters to consider changing their votes from the Liberals and the NDP.”

So let’s recap: 1) just 14 months ago the party wanted to expunge the marriage issue from campaign literature and didn’t want it mentioned on the campaign trail; 2) Harper and his advisors rejected the stalling tactics that could have prevented Bill C-38 from passing; and 3) now Harper wants us to believe that he will be the institution’s saviour if he is elected prime minister. It is fortunate that despite the party’s stance, so many CPC MPs spoke out on the right side of the issue.

At the same time, many of our supporters have suggested that Liberal MPs who are pro-life (or claim to be) could have and should have brought down their own government in one of the various non-confidence votes, thereby killing Bill C-38. Others are quite rightly angry because their MPs voted against C-38 simply to get the issue over before the summer recess despite the many opportunities to delay the vote until after the next federal election when there might be more pro-marriage MPs. While we would like to see more Liberal MPs challenge their leader, ultimately it would be a mistake to punish Liberals who oppose abortion and same-sex “marriage” by electing candidates who do not share our pro-life, pro-family values.

CLC urges voters to look first at the individual candidate and, where possible, the MP’s voting record, not the party. Whatever reservations we have about Harper, it is clear that there are many pro-life and pro-family MPs and candidates running for the Conservatives. Likewise, despite our strong opposition to the policies of Prime Minister Paul Martin, about one in four Liberal MPs voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage and a sizable portion of their caucus is pro-life. Ignoring party labels and voting for pro-life and pro-family candidates is the only way we are going to elect a majority of pro-life MPs; indeed, the number of socially conservative MPs grew in the last election and we are confident that through the hard work of grassroots voters like you, we will move closer to that goal in the next federal election. We must continue to work with each party before, during and after the elections.

Grassroots pro-life and pro-family voters must demand that their riding associations and MPs hold their leadership to account in terms of policies and political strategies that respect life and family. For years we have witnessed politicians of all stripes abandon principle based on crass political calculations. Only grassroots Canadians can rejuvenate the political parties and eventually elect enough MPs to reverse the moral assault on Canada.

Although Alberta has begrudgingly conceded that it will issue same-sex ‘marriage’ certificates in accordance with the newly passed federal Civil Marriage Act, the Alberta government has assured its marriage commissioners that they will not be forced to act against their consciences. Alberta is to be congratulated. Most provinces have no such protections for those who oppose same-sex ‘marriage,’ and neither does the newly passed federal legislation.

The fact is that marriage commissioners in most provinces can be fired from their jobs for refusing to perform gay ‘marriages.’ Already many have been fired and others have quit rather than compromise their principles or face the embarrassment of being fired. Alberta says it will take steps to ensure that marriage commissioners will be available to perform gay weddings when a commissioner cannot do it because it violates his or her conscience: “What we’re trying to do now, is ensure that we are doing everything we can to be able to accommodate everyone’s rights,” said government spokesman Kim Hunt. Furthermore, Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens said that the province is prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent marriage commissioners from being forced to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ against their religious beliefs. The clause permits provincial or federal governments to opt out of laws created by courts or other levels of government with which they disagree.

A report issued by the centre-right Heritage Foundation says that Americans should learn from their neighbours to the north as it prepares for a national debate on same-sex ‘marriage.’ Noting that as recently as 1999, Canada’s Parliament voted by an overwhelming 216 to 55 to uphold the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, yet within six years Parliament formally legalized same-sex ‘marriages.’ Heritage’s Bradley Watson said that considering the speed with which political opinion turned, the changing attitudes toward homosexuality and the similarities between the legal systems (especially our activist courts), Canada’s experience on the issue offers lessons to U.S. legislators.

He said that widespread public support for gay ‘marriage’ is not necessary, pointing to the fact that activist courts move the issue along as they accept the subtle but erroneous definition of human rights used by gay rights activists. Elected officials buy into these courts’ reasoning and soften their resistance to redefining marriage: “Although public opinion had not dramatically shifted, many politicians who had opposed same-sex marriage now believed that time was not on their side and that it was easier to switch than to fight.” Legislatures then codify judicial decrees rather than debate the issues and uphold their traditional right to create laws; rather, they become bodies that formally endorse the decisions of courts which historically have ruled on the validity of laws, not created new laws out of thin air.

Examining the Canadian experience, Bradley finds four vital lessons for his American audience: 1) The instructive and unexpected speed at which the traditional definition of marriage in Canada was distorted and destroyed. 2) Legal logic and judicial assertiveness, if not challenged forcefully and intelligently, quickly take on lives of their own and can overwhelm weak or disorganized opposition. 3) Marriage must be protected federally since state contained legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to federal recognition. 4) Available Constitutional mechanisms to resist judicial dominance on same sex ‘marriage’ must be employed.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is investigating recently reported serious adverse effects associated with mifepristone (trade name Mifeprex, also known as RU-486) and in the meantime it has issued a public health advisory highlighting the risk of sepsis or blood infection when using the abortion drug. The warning was thought necessary due to at least four publicly reported deaths of women using the drug between September 2003 and June 2005. (Abortion deaths are frequently under-reported because the cause of death is attributed to one of the symptoms rather than the abortion itself.)

The warning has nothing to do with the morality of the abortion drug as it focuses on its demonstrated health risks to women. Dr. Steven Galson, Acting Director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said, “The FDA is committed to sharing emerging drug information with the public and we believe it is important to share with healthcare providers and patients the latest serious reports of infection associated with this drug that we have received.”

Besides sepsis and blood infections, other reported health risks include serious bacterial infection, bleeding, and ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured. Danco, the American manufacturer of RU 486 boasted in a press release earlier this year that 460,000 women have used their abortion drug since September 2000, when then-U.S. president Bill Clinton’s FDA approved it. Put another way, that’s 460,000 babies killed in five years. That’s nothing to boast about.

In mid July, the media reported on a missing Alberta woman, Liana White, who was four months pregnant. On July 17, her partially decomposed body was found by volunteer searchers including her husband Michael White. The next day, Michael White was charged with second-degree murder in the death of his wife. Investigating detective, Michael Campeau, said, “Unfortunately, in Canada you can’t charge a person with the death of an unborn baby.” The detective added: “One more (child) would have arrived next winter, but the unborn fetus died with her mom. No charge was laid in connection with the fetus’s death.”

Some journalists compared the White case to the 2002 murder in the U.S., of Laci Peterson and her 8-month unborn baby, Connor. Her husband Scott Peterson was convicted last winter and the case led to the passing in the U.S., of a federal unborn victims of violence law that recognized both the existence of the child before birth and the child’s legal rights.

Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) said it is obscene that White did not face an additional murder charge because, unfortunately, under the Criminal Code of Canada, a baby is not considered a human being until birth. Vellacott, a co-chair of the parliamentary pro-life caucus, said the law was archaic and called for it to be amended. In a press release he said he would work with other pro-life MPs to draft a private member’s bill to protect unborn victims of violence when Parliament resumes. He said he expects bipartisan support: “Something like this would have such broad, I would think, cross-party support.” He said that Parliament needs to word the bill in a way that recognizes “the sanctity of a pre-born child when a mother is choosing to carry the child and then someone viciously assaults them so that the life of the mother and child are taken.” He stressed that the wording would not affect Canada’s abortion status quo in which women can obtain an abortion at any time, for any reason and (in most cases) at taxpayers’ expense.

Not surprisingly, abortion advocates oppose any law that protects any unborn child. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reported that Evelyn Reisner, executive director of Planned Parenthood Saskatoon Centre, said that she understood “the emotional impetus for that sort of law,” but expressed reservations that “it would be the beginning of a slippery slope and that it had potential to lead us down a path that would reduce a woman’s right to choose.” Reisner said that no matter what the wording on Vellacott’s bill would be, it would be the thin edge of the wedge used to pry open legal protection for all unborn with abortion itself defined as a violent act. It is notable that in order to protect their precious “abortion rights” abortion advocates are willing to ignore the killing of unborn babies that mothers want to carry to term. That’s quite the price for “choice.”

In March 2004, Bill C-6, An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research became law in Canada. The administration of this law was turned over to the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). We were told that reviews of the guidelines would be held regularly and Parliamentarians would have input into the procedures of the committee. In June, the CIHR updated the guidelines without, to our knowledge, any input from Parliament or the general public.

These “new” guidelines confirm all of our worst fears about this legislation which we fought against for almost three years. They begin their update by stating, “Stem cell research holds great potential to treat human disease and prevent suffering.” This of course is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Adult or “somatic” stem cells do have this wonderful potential while embryonic stem cells do not. There is no distinction made in their guidelines between the two. They then state, “Canadians can be assured that the research made possible by federal funds will be undertaken within a well-defined ethical and legal framework.” We are not at all assured of this, because we are dubious about their definition of “ethical”. The CIHR operates outside of Parliament and no one is closely monitoring their research. They have failed to assure Canadians that human embryos will not be used and killed in scientific experimentations.

Section 8.1.2 provides for “research to derive and study human embryonic germ cell (EG) lines or other cell lines of a pluripotent nature from human fetal tissue or amniotic fluid, provided that: 1. the proposed research does not compromise the pregnant woman’s decision on whether to continue her pregnancy.” In other words, stem cells will be obtained from babies slated for abortion provided the mother gives consent. We were assured that this would not happen.

The document is full of half-truths and outright lies, and confirms what we told people would happen if this legislation was passed. Human embryos are being used merely as guinea pigs for Canadian scientists to experiment with at their whim. The scientific facts confirm that there has not been one cure found using embryonic stem cells, yet our government allows this autonomous body to continue its work without ethical restrictions.

In June, the University of Western Ontario honoured abortionist Henry Morgentaler by bestowing upon him an honorary doctorate of laws in “recognition” of his activism for abortion. CLC warned then that it was only the beginning, and that UWO’s actions would be the beginning of a campaign for further honours as a way of making Morgentaler, long marginalized by even some abortion advocates for his law-breaking, more respectable in the eyes of the public.

Well, it didn’t take long for the next honour to come along as the Couchiching Institute for Public Policy presented him with its 2005 Award for Public Policy Leadership at its 74th annual conference in Orillia, Ont., in early August. In a press release, the Institute said “Through the direct and measurable impact that Dr. Morgentaler has had on public policy, he exemplifies the high level of leadership required of award recipients.” If by high level of leadership they mean repeatedly violating the criminal code, exploiting vulnerable women, and killing tens, if not hundreds of thousands of unborn babies, then Morgentaler’s their man.

Campaign Life Coalition National President Jim Hughes expressed his concern that the Couchiching conference and big business – Sun Life Financial sponsored the award — would confer their top award to a man who had made his reputation through criminal activity. “The fact that the business community is behind this sends a contradictory message to our young people about the consequences of breaking the law.” CLC urges supporters to eschew Sun Life Financial for their insurance needs and write to the company to let them know why. We cannot stand by silently while elite institutions in Canada – universities, think tanks, corporations – prop up Canada’s biggest killer as a hero. We deplore the rumour that this award could be the forerunner to Morgentaler being considered as a recipient of the Order of Canada.

It is time again for LifeChain, the annual peaceful pro-life witness. On October 2, tens of thousands of Canadian pro-lifers will stand at their communities’ busiest intersections holding signs proclaiming pro-life messages. In recent years the signs have said “Abortion kills children,” “Abortion hurts women,” and “Adoption the loving option,” among others.

In the last few years there has been a noticeable increase both in participation in, and public support for LifeChain, the later often indicated by drivers and passengers signalling their approval with honks of appreciation and the thumbs-up sign. Even more gratifying are the reports of people who stop to tell the pro-lifers that they have changed the mind of someone they know who was about to have an abortion but decided to keep the baby because they saw similar demonstrations in previous years. For more information about the LifeChain in your community, contact your local pro-life group. In the GTA, call Suresh in our Toronto office at (416) 204-9749.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is hosting a one-day symposium on September 24, in Toronto, examining Bill C-407 and the question of whether it threatens the lives of people with disabilities. Speakers include: Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead Yet, an American disabilities rights organization that focuses on euthanasia and assisted suicide, who will talk about euthanasia, disability and the Terri Schiavo case; former CLC board member Mark Pickup, a Canadian disability activist with MS and founder of Human Life Matters, will discuss why people with disabilities should be concerned about C-407; Peter Aarseen, an elder planning consultant, will address demographic changes that affect end-of-life issues. The event will be held from 10 am to 4 pm at the Ramada Hotel (downtown), 300 Jarvis Street. The cost is just $50 ($30 for students) and includes lunch. To register call the EPC at 1-877-439-3348.

National conference: Life and Family: Source of Hope, the 2005 National Pro-life Conference is being held November 7-19, at St. Joseph’s Oratory of Mount Royal in Montreal. Hosted by Campagne Québec Vie and sponsored by CLC and LifeCanada, it is drawing together a wide variety of speakers to address issues such as media bias, euthanasia, abortion and women’s health, the state of marriage in Canada and the politician’s role in service of life and family: Peter Stockland, editor-in-chief of Reader’s Digest; Michele Boulva, director of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family; Lydia Miljan of the Fraser Institute; Angelina Steenstra, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (Canada); Dr. Ian Dowbiggin, professor of history at the University of PEI and the author of several books on euthanasia and eugenics; Richard Bastien, Quebec director of the Catholic Civil Rights League; Dr. Daniel Cere, director of the Newman Centre, McGill University;

Dr. Clem Persaud, professor emeritus in microbiology and biotechnology; MPs Stockwell Day and Dan McTeague; artist and author Michael O’Brien.

On November 17, there will be an evening presentation from Catholic, Evangelical and Jewish leaders on religious perspectives on the respect for life and family. In a special session on November 18 on Pope John Paul II, Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for the Family, will examine how the late Holy Father was a “Great Pope for Life and Family.”

Price for the full conference is $125 ($75 for students and youth) and $60 ($40 for students/youth) for the Saturday session. There will be a $25 surcharge for registrations received after October 31, so register now. For more information, call Yoli at (416) 204-9749 or 1-800-730-5358.

National March for Life: The 2006 National March for Life is May 10-12. It is never too early to make your plans for the annual National March for Life; indeed, our organizing committee began planning for the 2006 March immediately following the end of the 2005 event, the largest, most successful National March for Life in Ottawa yet. Help us build upon this momentum by marking your calendar now for 2006 and booking your hotel room. Teachers could plan their school trips to the nation’s capital to coincide with the March. For more information please call our Toronto office at (416) 204-9749 or 1-800-730-5358.  

National Strategy Meeting: CLC is hosting its annual strategy meeting September 16-18 for Campaign Life Coalition leaders from across the country. This will be an extremely important meeting with a federal election anticipated within the next six months, the development of strategies on the same-sex “marriage” front and new assaults on life and family at the United Nations. We will keep you informed in the next few newsletters of developments from this strategy meeting.  

Borowski Award: It is again time to send your nominations for the Borowski Award, the annual honour CLC gives to the public official who has done the most to defend life and family. Recent winners include MP Paul Szabo and Senator Ann Cools, to name just two. Please send your nominations to Rhonda Wood at 104 Bond St., Suite 300, Toronto, Ont., M5B 1X9.

Yours for life
Jim Hughes
National President

Please support CLC's actions with your generous donations.