G8 and Maternal Health

Finally, a little common sense and clarity from the Government.Can't quite say the same for the opposition.

The Federal government is spearheading a program to improve maternal and child health in the third world. I'm not sure of the details, but I bet most people aren't either. The Opposition is making such a big stink about abortion funding not being in a program to protect maternal and child health, that everything else gets drowned out. Maybe it would help them to read the dictionary a little:
- Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
- Termination: the action of bringing something or coming to an end
- Pregnancy: the condition or period of being pregnant
- Pregnant: having a child or young developing in the uterus

Those were taken from the dictionary application on my computer (Dictionary, v. 1.0.2, copyright Apple Computers Inc, 2005)

So, I'm not sure how "abortion" and "maternal and child health" can even be in the same sentence. But that's a debate for another time.

Back to the CBC article. The writer suggests the Conservatives, by not including abortion, are going against what they said last month about not "closing doors on any options, including contraception." Well, let's pull out the dictionary again:

contraception, noun. the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
conception, noun. the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.

So, by my reading, the Conservatives are in the clear here. Abortion is not a form of contraception because conception has already happened. How can you prevent pregnancy if your already pregnant? Huh. You can still include all forms of contraception in a policy without including abortion.

Well, what does Mr. Bob Rae (Liberal) have to say about this?

"They just reopened the abortion debate," Rae told reporters outside the House of Commons. "We are saying to the countries that are the poorest: 'We won't apply the law that we have in Canada.'"

Actually, Bob, we CAN'T apply the law we have in Canada because THERE IS NO LAW. That's right, no law on abortion in Canada. Abortion is legal anytime, from conception until birth. One could actually see the baby coming out and kill him/her, and get off scot free with no charges (partial birth abortion). That's where we're at odds with other G8 nations.

We are the only developed country in the world that has no law whatsoever in regards to abortion. I wonder if THAT position will cause problems with other G8 members.

Does anyone else see the irony when Mr. Paul Dewar (NDP) says: "It's just unusual to see the ignorance of a government that claims to be a member of the G8"??

Abortion in Alberta... time is limited??

This, from Alberta ProLife:

Abortion is something we would like to wish away.

The fact is abortion is a business. You and I, as taxpayers, are on the hook for between $6 and $8 million each year. That’s what it costs to abort over 12,000* little ones in Alberta-each year. The provincial government says it only funds “abortions that are medically necessary.” In fact, it pays for all the abortions performed in the province, whether at hospitals or private clinics.

The truth is abortion is an act of violence that destroys people’s lives. In 2004 almost 40% of all abortions were repeat procedures (performed on women who have obtained a previous abortion). Less than 5% of all abortions are performed to protect the mother’s health or life.

The fact is the majority of Albertans polled over the past 15 years oppose tax-funded abortion.
The time has come to de-fund abortion.
Helpmake it happen.

This is a grassroots campaign to de-fund abortion in Alberta.
Give financially or volunteer your time or expertise.

Campaign to De-fund Abortion in Alberta
Box 11479 Edmonton, AB T5J 3K5
or e-mail apl@albertaprolife.com.
You can call us at 1-877-880-5433.
Donate • Contact yourMLA• CallUs

* Reference: Alberta Reproductive Health: Pregnancies and Births Surveillance Report 2009

Abortion Distortion

The health minister in Quebec recently tried to enact universal standards for cleanliness for surgical procedures... standards that apply to hospitals, smaller public surgical clinics, private clinics... and standards that would apply for any type of surgery - breast cancer surgery, appendectomy, gallbladder removal, wisdom teeth, abortion...

Whoops, did I say abortion? The actual bill didn't mention any specific surgery, just that all sites performing surgeries need to meet the safety requirements. Well, the pro-abortion lobby jumped right on it - this bill (by a pro-choicer, I might add), would shut down 3 abortion clinics until they could renovate! Then how would women get the abortions they need?

Here's the CBC article: Quebec abortion clinics excused...
Not quite accurate in its reporting, but the essentials are there. 2nd paragraph should read: "Bill 34 would have required all surgical clinics to have ventilated operating rooms and surgical clothing for all staff."

Andrea Mrozek and Rebecca Walberg, founders of ProWomanProLife.org, have written an excellent commentary about the whole debacle, published in the National Post August 21: The Abortion Distortion.

Definitely worth the read, even if you don't like the whole abortion debate.

One Small Step...

From CatholicVote.org

Obama in Notre Dame, Pt 2

Ann Coulter had some strong criticism of President Obama's speech at Notre Dame last week. She also reflects on the illegitimate "constitutional right" of abortion:

Liberals were awestruck by Obama's statesmanlike speech at Notre Dame, but whatever he says about abortion is frothy nonsense because we're not allowed to vote on abortion policy in America. If it's a "constitutional right," we can no more vote on abortion than we could vote on free speech.

With Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters ripped the issue out of the democratic process -- limb from limb, you might say -- and declared their desired outcome a "constitutional right." They have hysterically defended that lawless decision for the last quarter-century.

All of Obama's soothing words about joining hands and not demonizing one another are just blather as long as that legal monstrosity remains the law of the land.

Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?" (What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?)

A good start would be letting us vote.

Wesley J. Smith also offers a short but excellent critique of Obama's speech on the First Things daily blog called First Thoughts. Obama says one thing, but does another. He talks about unity, but his actions and policies do nothing to promote the "middle ground" that he mentions.

As my cousin Chris, and numerous other sources, pointed out last week, recent polls show more Americans consider themselves to be Pro-Life rather than Pro-Choice/Abortion. So if Ann Coulter's vote were to happen (and I'm sure countless millions would gladly go to the polls), the "right to abortion" would be seriously challenged and Roe v. Wade overturned! What a glorious day that will be!

For discussions on other life issues, check out Wesley J. Smith's blog Secondhand Smoke - "Your 24/7 seminar on bioethics and the importance of being human."

Obama in Notre Dame

President Obama gave the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today, and also received an honorary doctor of laws. The decision to honor one of the country's most extreme abortion advocates at one of the country's oldest Catholic institutions was not without some controversy. And rightly so.

CNN showed the address live, and somehow we had full cable and were able to watch it. Obama spoke well (as usual) and talked about some of the controversial issues. To me, he seemed to justify his stance on abortion by saying he'll speak fairly about both sides, and called for more dialogue. And his reasoning for embryonic stem cell research (he omitted the "embryonic"): some people oppose it because of their view on sanctity of life, and some people are for it because they hold on to the sanctity of life of their child with juvenile diabetes who could be helped (by killing tiny unborn humans - my words there). But that's about all he said; no other rationale for his positions. Obama also talked about the economic crisis, climate change, and gave some encouraging words for the grads.

Somehow, Obama got standing ovations for a couple of his controversial points. Curiously, Father Hesburgh wasn't one of them. He's a former president of Notre Dame, and was mentioned several times in Obama's speech as a pioneer in "dialogue" in the sixties for racial justice.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the media. I look forward to the commentary on First Things... Maybe President Obama should read Healing the Culture (see previous post)!! That would do more for dialogue and fair treatment of the issue that all his rhetoric combined.

Healing the Culture

Just started reading "Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom and the Life Issues" by Robert J. Spitzer. Here's a couple quotes from the introduction:

When we ground our culture and public policy in metaphysical materialism, we advocate for not only a radically incomplete view of reality but also a radically incomplete view of human dignity, destiny, and community.

and

our view of the reality and value of the intangibles (anything that is not visible, like love, justice, personhood, etc.) underlies every moral and cultural issue upon which the quality of our individual and communal life depends.

I look forward to exploring these intangibles, and how I can bring healing to the culture and within the medical profession.

Attack on Conscience... again

The CBC Edmonton website had a random article today about a pro-life doctor who refuses to provide referrals for abortion. Dr. Johnston was commenting on the upcoming review of standards by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, where they may require physicians to refer a patient to an abortion center if the patient asks. This would essentially make it illegal for a doctor (myself included) to use our moral judgment in advising and treating our patients. And a brief reading of the comments shows most people do not understand the nature of medicine or the nature of abortion.

Practicing medicine is a moral activity. We, as physicians, recommend to our patients what they ought to do with their bodies/health. It is then up to the patient to proceed. As such, we must use our clinical judgment, but also our moral judgment in recommending what we feel is best for our patients. If we cannot do this, then the autonomy of the doctor is hampered and we become simply automatons of the system. Just because a law is in place does not make it right. And just because a patient demands for a procedure does not make it right, either. Particularly when there are so many negative sequelae to that procedure. See Abort73.com for excellent overviews of the abortion topic.

A fitting quote from Theodore Dalrymple in his book, "Life at the Bottom":

If the doctor has a duty to relieve the suffering of his patients, he must have some idea where that suffering comes from, and this involves the retention of judgment, including moral judgment. And if, as far as he can tell in good faith, the misery of his patients derives from the way they live, he has a duty to tell them so - which often involves a more or less explicit condemnation of their way of life as completely incompatible with a satisfying existence. By avoiding the issue, the doctor is not being kind to his patients; he is being cowardly. Moreover, by refusing to place the onus on the patients to improve their lot, he is likely to mislead them into supposing that he has some purely technical or pharmacological answer to their problems, thus helping to perpetuate them.