Stephen Harper

On January 27, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally announced that Canada would use its position as president and host of the G8 this Spring to promote maternal and child health in the developing world. Writing in the Toronto Star and Montreal’s La Presse newspapers, Harper said: “The lack of the most basic services can lead to dire consequences, especially for the world’s most vulnerable populations,” noting estimates that 500,000 women die every year during pregnancy and childbirth, as well as 9 million children under the age of five. “This is simply not acceptable,” he said. The Harper plan calls for developed countries to provide the funds for clean water, inoculations, nutrition programs, and the training of health workers to care for women and deliver babies. We sent out a media release and letter applauding him over his prioritizing the health of mothers and children in foreign aid; it is long overdue.

Improving maternal health and reducing infant mortality are laudable goals, although ones that are all too often rife with unfortunate politics because it raises the specter of abortion. Logically, there is no reason why this should be so: abortion is the antithesis of helping mothers and their children. You don’t promote infant health care by killing babies before they are born. However, no sooner than the story had broken that it was revealed that pro-abortion Minister of International Co-operation, Bev Oda (Durham) held a press conference with Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD) – a pro-abortion, pro-population control NGO that used to share offices with the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada – in attendance. It is unclear what advice ACPD gave or whether the Harper government intends to follow it, but we call up pro-life Canadians to contact Prime Minister Stephen Harper and International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda to ask them to ensure that the government does not cave in to pressure to push abortion and population control as part of the initiative.

The rhetoric within the Prime Minister’s announcement – “Far too many lives and unexplored futures have already been lost for want of relatively simple health-care solutions” – would indicate that there is no room for abortion, but we all know that the words politicians use and the actions of government agencies might not be the same. There is a ray of hope. According to Conservative MP Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface), abortion is not part of the Canadian government’s plan to help women and children in the developing world. She told CBC’s Power and Politics show, “First and foremost, this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. That topic is not part and parcel of this initiative … [it] is designed to ask other countries, who are in a position to help, to save lives of vulnerable children and mothers in other countries.” She said Harper is calling upon the leaders of wealthy nations to focus on education and training: “Abortion is not a part of this.”

We hope that the government withstands political pressure to make abortion a central plank of their plan to help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable mothers and their children. We also note that Harper has repeatedly said that abortion is not an issue he wants to deal with on the domestic stage, completely backing away from the issue. It would serve him well politically (and be the right thing to do) by ignoring the calls to make abortion a key component of his foreign aid strategy. For years, abortion advocates have used maternal health as cover to expand so-called “reproductive health services” including abortion and contraception. Meanwhile, calls from the pro-life movement and pro-life physicians for real health services that meets the immediate and urgent needs of mothers and their young children were ignored. This correction is long overdue.

Michael Ignatieff

As we noted above, too often this issue becomes politicized. Cue Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who issued a press release demanding that Prime Minister Harper include abortion and contraception as part of his proposed maternal health initiative. He said that “Women are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception.” Thus, he also demanded that funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation be fully implanted. (The federal government has not made public whether nearly $20 million in funds for IPPF will be advanced to the world’s largest abortion organization after their taxpayer funding ran out in December.) Claiming that there is a “pro-choice consensus” – where or over what, he did not say – Ignatieff said ‘let’s keep the ideology out of this and move forward.” But it was he who has injected ideology and politics into the issue.

CLC National Organizer Mary Ellen Douglas said, “The fact that Planned Parenthood and their affiliates have jumped on this initiative, and the women’s caucus of the Liberal party is pulling Ignatieff’s strings shows that they are determined to include the killing of the unborn in developing countries.” But it was not only pro-lifers who were criticizing Ignatieff. Most pundits said the move to make abortion a central plank of foreign aid was a calculated political effort to shore up his left-wing and feminist base, holding the health of the poor and vulnerable hostage to domestic political considerations.

There was no clearer indication of this ugly politics than Ignatieff mentioning former U.S. President George W. Bush, who famously cut off funding to groups involved in doing or promoting abortions, but which has nothing to do with Canadian policy. It was politics, through and through. As Kelly McParland said at the National Post’s website, “stirring up emotions for no better reason than to gain a few votes would be a cheap and wholly irresponsible thing to do.” Editorials in the Sun newspapers of February 6 and Catholic Register of February 14 condemned the export of our abortion culture overseas. Liberal MP Paul Szabo went on record to both the Canadian Press and LifeSiteNews.com to say that his party’s leader announced the policy without consulting the caucus, despite the fact that they had that same week held a caucus meeting on the issue of international development and foreign aid where abortion was never mentioned.

Ignatieff said, “We want women to care for themselves better and then look after their kids better.” But abortion is not health care, and killing the unborn will not help women take better care of their children. Also, as countless studies have shown, there are numerous physical and emotional health consequences to abortion, so promoting abortion in the developing world could unleash a whole new array of health problems. Pro-abortion advocates often point to statistics to “prove” that abortion is a necessary part of foreign aid health programs. The International Planned Parenthood Federation says that there are 500,000 annual maternal deaths and that 70,000 of those are the result of complication from unsafe abortions. But as Dr. Jack Willkie, President of the International Right to Life Federation has pointed out, such numbers are unreliable because pro-abortion groups fudge the numbers to promote their agenda. Furthermore, such statistics are not maintained by most developing countries or are unreliable. Lastly, as Dr. Willkie notes, abortion like most surgical procedures is inherently unsafe in much of the developing world because the conditions of most rural clinics are unhygienic and a lot of “health care” is not provided by credentialed professionals.

Religious leaders responded to Ignatieff’s stridently pro-abortion position. Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto, both took the unusual step of criticizing a politician by name. Bishop Henry called Ignatieff’s demand for more abortion “pathetic” and Archbishop Collins said “there are so many obvious practical steps” that could help women it was “sad to see Mr. Ignatieff introduce [abortion] into the discussion.” Evangelical leaders also chastised the Liberal leader. Don Hutchinson, vice president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, wondered how “Could Mr. Ignatieff seriously consider the improvement of maternal health to include the advancement of abortion on a global scale?”

We condemned Ignatieff’s call for Canada to become abortionist to the world. As CLC National President Jim Hughes noted in a press release: “His suggestion that his Canadian pro-abortion position be imposed on the developing world which needs medical assistance is unconscionable. For years Ignatieff has accused the Harper government of having a “hidden agenda” and now we know where he intends to take the Liberal Party on this issue.”

The way forward

LifeSiteNews.com talked to Dr. Robert Walley, founder and executive director of MaterCare International (MCI), a pro-life organization dedicated to providing genuine maternal care in the developing world. (He recently returned from Haiti where his organization is setting up a project to rebuild maternity care in the Earthquake-stricken nation.) Walley said he is excited about Harper’s initiative, but he is keeping an eye on how the program is implemented, noting that MCI has been denied funds from the Canadian International Development Agency due to his group’s pro-life approach.

Action Canada for Population and Development and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (formerly Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada) are urging their supporters to write to the Prime Minister and Minister of International Cooperation to pressure them to implement a maternal health initiative that includes both contraception and abortion. It is vitally important that we counter this campaign with our own, urging the Prime Minister and Minister Oda to focus on maternal and infant health. As Paul Tuns, editor of The Interim stated, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants to provide more abortion and contraception at the expense of less clean water and fewer inoculations; every dollar spent on condoms and abortion-performing midwives is a dollar not spent fighting malnutrition and unsafe deliveries.”

Please make that point in your letters: every dollar that goes to abortion and contraception is not going to nutrition and clean water and safe deliveries. Even if the total dollar amount for such aid goes up, any money that goes to so-called “reproductive health services” will not be money used to provide food, water and genuine, life-saving health care. Canada must not allow abortion and depopulation activists gain control of this program and use it to promote their own agendas at the expense of the health and lives of millions of women and children in the developing world.

Action Item: Write or call the Prime Minister and Minister of International Cooperation and urge them to reject calls to include abortion and contraception as part of their program to address maternal and child health. Write to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa K1A 0A2. Write Bev Oda, MP (Durham) and Minister of International Cooperation, House of Commons, Ottawa, K1A 0A6 or call (613) 992-2792 and your M.P., no stamp is required.

If you get The Interim, you know by now that the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health has seen its funding dramatically reduced since 2006. In the last half-decade, the CFSH (formerly the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada) has seen its federal funding go from about $1.2 million to just $9,381 – more than a 99% reduction in funding. It was unclear at the time of publication whether the reduced funds represented a cut in program funding or the expiration of specific project funding; following up on The Interim story, the Canadian Press found out that it was the latter and according to the head of the CFSH, the organization sees little reason to ask for funding while the Conservatives are in power. That’s great news.

However, careful readers of the paper immediately noticed a typo in the story on page 11 and began calling both The Interim and Campaign Life Coalition seeking clarification. The paper reported:

Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, told The Interim it is wrong to fund one side of moral and political issues and not the other. But he added that cutting, and eventually ending, the funding for abortion and contraceptive services is both economically expedient and morally correct. “In economic times such as these, the government can save money by cutting funding to unrepresentative special interest groups,” he said. “But in the long-term, it makes more sense to completely stop funding organizations that are reducing births, because Canada faces a demographic crisis. It does make sense to promote and pay for contraception and abortion when the country faces a grey future without enough workers.

It should have read “It does not make sense to promote and pay for contraception and abortion…” and it should have been obvious from the context of the paragraph and the source, that the head of Campaign Life Coalition does not think promoting contraception and abortion “makes sense,” but we wanted to clarify that just in case any supporters thought that Jim Hughes had a change of heart on the life issues. Rest assured, he did not.

In mid-February, an ad hoc committee of the Bishops of Canada met to discuss their international aid arm, the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P). At the same time, LifeSiteNews.com reported, Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins has decided to continue the same funding restrictions on funds from the archdiocese to D&P that he instituted last year, in the wake of the scandal. They are not returning calls about the status of funding abortion advocacy groups they partner with – the issue revealed by LifeSiteNews.com last March and which resulted in the restrictions being imposed last Summer after a report by D&P to the bishops claimed to find no wrong-doing on the part of the organization or their partners despite incontrovertible evidence on the contrary. From what we can gather, D&P looks to have made no significant changes in terms of funding of groups which advocate for abortion and/or contraception, with some of the problematic groups still listed as partners of Development and Peace.

Last year, under the direction of Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins, the archdiocese’s $1.125 million contribution to D&P through Sharelife (an umbrella Catholic charity) was restricted by permitting the funds to go only to those D&P partners which were approved by their local bishops. The ingenious solution was praised by pro-life leaders in Canada at the time, since none of the pro-abortion groups funded by D&P were known to be endorsed by their local bishops in the developing world. A representative of ShareLife has acknowledged that Archbishop Collins has placed the same stipulations on giving to D&P as he instituted last year. Archbishop Collins warned that future funding for D&P would be contingent on reform of the organization.

We continue to get calls from supporters wondering whether D&P has cleaned up its act and is worthy of support. Unfortunately, the answer ist still not clear and the bishops themselves remain divided about the appropriateness of funding groups that support abortion. Catholics in dioceses such as the archdiocese of Toronto which have placed stipulations on usage may in good conscience donate, but others should beware that their donations could be used to support anti-life groups. We call upon the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to do the right thing and fully investigate Development and Peace and reform it so that it never again partners with organizations that support abortion and contraception.

Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), the University of Victoria pro-life club, has been fighting for fair treatment on campus for years, but in February they received support from an unlikely ally in their battle with the University of Victoria Student Society (UVSS). Coming to the defense of YPY is the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) which has threatened litigation over the student union’s refusal to fund the pro-life club because by taking sides in the abortion debate, the UVSS infringe upon freedom of speech. This is a surprising twist in the battle to freely express pro-life views because as John Dixon, a BCCLA director and former president, told the Victoria Times Colonist newspaper, “We’re pro-choice nuts over at the civil liberties association.” He said they hope to persuade the Student Society to “relent in their actions against the club, saying the student union must represent the general interests of the student body and that it has no authority to arbitrate a student club’s right to express their point of view.

Dixon said, “They can’t punish, denounce, [or] discipline a group who, in a very civil way ... try to persuade people not to have abortions.” He said that bioethical issues are still within the realm of legitimate debate and thus it is wrong for a public institution to censor one side of the discussion. Dixon said legal action is possible if the Student Society does not reinstate Youth Protecting Youth. Dixon said in a BCCLA press release: “We have always seen academic freedom - freedom from government interference - against the background of the public university as an institution specially devoted to freedom of inquiry and speech.” The Student Society is part of the officially pro-abortion Canadian Federation of Students, which says that all student unions are free to fund whatever groups they want.

YPY was granted club status by the Clubs Council of the Student Society February 2009, but denied them the funds to which the club was entitled. A petition recently circulated in the Student Society’s building that demanded suspension of YPY for their “repeated offensive actions” – actions which the petition misrepresented or lied about, including the presence of Genocide Awareness Project materials (YPY has never used GAP materials). The Student Society accused YPY of engaging in “moralistic evangelizing” in their promotion of the pro-life cause on campus, but as Dixon noted, “What posters aren’t moralistic?”

The refusal to fund Youth Protecting Youth is part of a large and long trend to prevent campus pro-life groups from engaging university students on the abortion issue.

CLC calls upon all university and college student unions and administrations to protect the rights of all students to freely organize, assemble and speak, as part of the long tradition of the university being a place where ideas are exchanged freely.

CHBC, the Okanagan, B.C. affiliate of Global, refused to broadcast a pro-life advertisement after originally agreeing to air it, giving in to pro-abortion activists. The ad was sponsored by Kelowna Right to Life (KRTL), who according to its executive director Marlon Bartram, were told that “it’s simply too graphic for a television commercial.” The station told Bartram that they had received between 12 and 18 complaints from people who demanded the ad not run. In a press release, Bartram condemned the censorship of the truth of the “most important social, moral and human rights issue of our time.” Kelowna Right to Life says that the response they receive about the (unseen) ad were 10 to 1 positive.

The ad portrays an adult hand holding the hand of a baby, which as the camera pans out, is revealed to be the hand of a baby killed by abortion. The ad, approved by the Television Bureau of Canada and produced by Priests for Life in the United States, begins with the slogan: “All those against abortion, raise your hand.” Bartram said that if the commercial was viewed as too graphic, few crime dramas would be on television because what they show is much worse. If it was broadcast, it is widely believed it would have been the first time an aborted child appeared on Canadian television.

Taking a glass-is-half-full view of the controversy, he said the national attention the cancellation has gotten provided an opportunity to discuss abortion. “It’s probably been seen by more people already than it would have been if it had just ran in our small market here.” Ironically, when CHBC originally said it would air the ad, the station’s news director, Derek Hinchliffe, told the Vancouver Province, that it would be “offensive” not to run the ad because it would be wrong to censor a group whose ad passed the Television Bureau’s standards of appropriateness.

Focus on the Family in the United States spent more than $2.5 million to air a commercial during the Super Bowl in which Pamela Tebow talks about her son Tim, a star college football quarterback. Both Tim and Pam Tebow are unabashed Christians and she has often shared the story about how she ignored doctors encouraging her to have an abortion because she was ill and living in the Philippines at the time of her pregnancy. Feminists and pro-aborts went nuts at the news the ad would appear during the Super Bowl and campaigned to have it removed. Many critics said it was inappropriate to politicize the football game or promote a particular cause, but many of those critics exposed themselves as rabidly Pro-abortion while criticizing the choice to keep one’s baby.

To their credit, CBS broadcast it. (It was not possible to see the ad in Canada because broadcast rules require cable companies to carry the Canadian network feed in place of the American feed when they are showing the same program at the same time.) When the commercial ran, even some abortion advocates wondered what the brouhaha was all about. There was no mention of abortion or termination or choice, just the mother talking about overcoming difficulties before her son playfully tackles her and gives her a hug. The commercial ended by directing viewers to Focus on the Family’s website. It just goes to show the whole world that pro-choice is really pro-abortion because they could not tolerate the story of one woman choosing to keep her child and celebrating his life with the world, just as the Pro-abortion movement in Canada refused to support federal legislation the Ken Epp private members bill that protected wanted children.

Ted Gerk, a British Columbia pro-life researcher and former Interim columnist, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to call on the government to allow access to information relating to abortions committed in the province. He said the government should repeal Bill 21, an amendment to the province’s Freedom of Information Act that was enacted in 2001 by the NDP government; Bill 21 specifically excludes access to abortion information. Gerk told the committee, the bill “created the amazing dilemma that I can know that my local hospital is providing abortion services, but I’m not allowed to know how many.” As a result, national abortion figures released annually by Statistics Canada are incomplete because they no longer include the number of abortions in B.C. because as Stats Can says, the province’s figure is “too unreliable to be published.”

Gerk noted Bill 21 came about after he and other researchers exposed embarrassments to the NDP government of the day when they learned details about its special Abortion Services Working Group, through which the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Attorney General were regularly meeting with abortion-activist groups. Researchers also discovered that a B.C. Attorney General had filed a false affidavit when he swore that he had not participated in a secret strategy meeting with abortion proponents and that the College of Physicians and Surgeons “didn’t even follow their own rules when it came to the accreditation of one of Vancouver’s abortion clinics.”

On another occasion Gerk was able to discover that 15 babies survived abortions at Vancouver General Hospital but were not treated and later died. Gerk told the committee last month, Bill 21 was enacted “plainly and simply, because the government was tired of having to defend their abortion policies and activism” and to hide the fact “They were meeting with activists on one side of a public policy issue, all the while refusing to meet with those with a differing opinion.” He said that in a democracy, monitoring the government and bureaucracy were essential.

Gerk and John Hof, the president of Campaign Life Coalition B.C., also called on the Acting B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Paul Fraser, to address this problem of abortion censorship. They presented him with 2,500 postcards signed by fellow British Columbians. You can learn more about this campaign and abortion censorship in general at http://stopabortioncensorship.wordpress.com/.

On January 28, the Calgary Herald ran a letter to the editor that marked the 22nd year since the Morgentaler Supreme Court decision. The letter was from one Kaitlin Chivers-Wilson, a member of Medical Students for Choice. Ms. Chivers-Wilson lamented that “Henry Morgentaler’s promise rings hollow for many women seeking safe, legal abortions.” There was, you see, a great obstacle: not enough doctors will commit abortions. Fewer than one in five hospitals (officially) do abortions, the majority of abortionists are over 50 years of age, and apparently there are many unsafe abortion committed where there is less formal access. These unsafe abortions “invariably” result in complications. Chivers-Wilson claims Canadian women continue to die “from complications arising from abortions performed in areas with limited access to safe procedures.” She says that new doctors are not being trained to meet this “medical need” for abortion and therefore abortion training should be a mandatory part of med school.

Reading the letter, one would think that abortion was an endangered service in Canada, rather than the second most common surgical procedure in the country, with about 100,000 surgical abortions committed every year and countless chemical abortions. We’ve seen this type of scaremongering about unsafe abortion before; Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League in the United States, admits that they just made up (numbers) how many about the number of women who sought illegal, back-alley abortions, to help push society toward legalization. Any look at the annual statistics shows that abortion is anything but rare. There are many communities that have more than one hospital although not all of them provide the same services (including abortion). Canadians should not be fooled into believing that abortion is not available to any woman who is seeking one.

Furthermore, it is not only unregulated abortions that are unsafe. There is a vast medical literature that shows abortion is associated with a wide range of physical and emotional consequences. They may be less safe when done in a doctor’s office than in the hospital, but they are never perfectly safe. Lastly, the abortion movement might ask itself why so few medical professionals want to commit abortions and why compelling future doctors to learn about them in medical school and requiring them to do them once they are practicing seems necessary: it is because most doctors want nothing to do with the practice. They go into the health field to heal people and make them better, not to kill and maim.

If Chivers-Wilson’s letter to the Calgary Herald seems desperate and dishonest, it is because the abortion license is built on a foundation of lies. It cannot last forever.

Just a reminder that the 40 Days for Life vigil is taking place February 17 through March 28 in Kelowna, B.C.; Red Deer, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; Toronto, Ont.; Guelph, Ont.; Montreal, Quebec and special witnessing has been arranged in many other locales. This powerful pro-life witness of prayer, fasting, community outreach and sidewalk counseling has saved thousands of babies, closed abortion mills and convinced abortion workers to quit their jobs. Contact local pro-life representatives or our national office in Toronto for locations and times. People who do not live near these communities can offer their spiritual support by praying and fasting for the unborn. For Christians who offer special sacrifices during Lent, this is a great way to prepare for Easter.

The annual U.S. March For Life in January marked the 37th anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court Decision Roe v Wade.

Stand up Now! Unite for eh Life Principles, attracted a crowd of over 300,000 marchers, over half under 25 yrs. of age to the U.S. Capitol.

Ms. Nellie Gray President of the March For Life Fund stated emphatically “ We Pro-life American are determined to bring to Washington officialdom our theme “ Remember -The Life Principles mean Equal Care with No Exceptions”.

There were many Church Services, Conferences and meetings taking place over 3 days, many Congressmen, Church leaders and Silent No More , culminating with the Rose Dinner featuring Princeton University Professor Robert P. George.

Many Canadian Pro-lifers were on hand to get their first taste of what a truly large Pro-life gathering looks like.

Join us for the National March for Life in Ottawa May 12-14. It is an important way to remind our elected representatives and the public that the injustice of abortion cannot continue and that pro-lifers will not rest until every child in the womb is safe from abortion.

For details see the brochure that goes with this edition of the CLC National News in which exact times and locations of prayer services, Masses, and various events are listed. Some key events include the Candlelight Vigil on Wednesday, May 12, at the Canadian Tribute to Human Rights monument at dusk, the National March for Life on Thursday May 13 which begins with presentations from pro-life speakers and politicians at noon at Parliament Hill, the Rose Dinner and Youth Banquet that evening at the Hampton Inn on Coventry Road beginning at 6 pm, and the Youth Conference on Friday, May 14 from 8:30am to 2:30 pm also at the Hampton Inn.

Last year, more than 12,000 Canadians spoke up for life at the National March and we expect this year to be bigger and better. Every year, we break the previous year’s record for participation, in part due to the growing number of schools, youth groups and churches that are taking part. Contact your local pro-life group or church to see if they are organizing a bus trip to National March for Life. Or make plans to include the March as part of a vacation to the nation’s capital this Spring. If you can’t make it, join us spiritually by returning the Candlelight Vigil sponsorship contained in the brochure. Your donations help defer the tremendous costs of holding this important annual witness.

We remind everyone that there are provincial marches for life in every province that take place at about the same time as the National March for Life (March in Ontario and Quebec is in Ottawa) so that everyone across the country can give voice to the unborn and speak out against abortion in a peaceful but powerful way.

For more information please view the National March for Life page:
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/events/Marchforlife/2010/

In financially strapped times, we find ourselves becoming innovative in the attempt to be save our pennies. To this end, we invite anyone who may have an abundance of Air Miles to consider donating their redeemed value in the form of flights. Our work often requires our presence at various conferences throughout North America and abroad (i.e. International Right to Life Federation annual meetings) so your donation will directly help us in travel expenses. Please get in touch with us at the CLC office if you feel you would like to support the cause of life in this way.

From time to time, we have a need for a dependable used car for our Toronto staff. As you are well aware, salaries for full-time pro-life workers is below market average so, when the need arises, someone who no longer needs an extra auto, donates to the cause. In the past, due to a recent death in the family or someone elderly surrendering their driver’s license, autos have been offered and gratefully accepted. Please call us if you know that one is available.