No results were found.
An error occurred while attempting to retrieve data. Please try again.
Please select the option to share your location in order to use the Detect My Location feature.
We were unable to detect your location. Please enter your postal code instead.
Postal code and geolocation data may not always be accurate. Please check to ensure that the electoral districts displayed below are correct.

blog posts

As of January 1, 2012 the Ontario government has been hiding all records relating to the provision of abortion services. Abortion is fully funded by tax-payers and the residents of Ontario have a right to know how much money is being spent on abortion, how...

This column was published in the National Post on June 13, 2013 This summer, if one anti-abortion group has its way, nearly a quarter of a million Canadian mailboxes soon will be stuffed with a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus juxtaposed with the smiling face of the local Member of Parliament. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has initiated what they call “Face the Children,” a project in which 250,000 postcards will be delivered into five key constituencies. They are targeting the ridings represented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Calgary MP Michelle Rempel (an up-and-coming Conservative MP said to be in line for a cabinet position) and southern Ontario MPs Bal Gosal, Parm Gill and Rick Dykstra. The CCBR is concerned that these MPs (among others) have refused to protect pre-born children at any stage of pregnancy. “[Harper’s] position to defeat any abortion-related legislation and to shut down debate in Parliament is so extreme that it means he is unwilling to ban abortion [even] in the third trimester — pitting our prime minister against a majority of Canadians,” says Stephanie Gray, CCBR’s Executive Director. It is one more indication that many Canadians reject the Canadian legal status quo on pre-born vulnerability, i.e. abortion on demand with no restrictions.

Joyce Arthur, the Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, gave us another indication that we are winning. Our efforts to shift the Overton Window in favour of legal protection for pre-born humans are paying off. In a lengthy diatribe Arthur laments the manner in which the abortion rabble is being treated by the press. She criticizes the mainstream media for their coverage of the death of Dr. Henry Morgentaler as being too “balanced.” In her opinion it gives too much credibility to today’s young, energetic and smart pro-life movement. Interspersed throughout her rant Arthur says things like, “Apparently, the media thinks that [the anti-choice] view has some kind of legitimacy and must be presented against the pro-choice view in the name of ‘balance’,” and, “The mainstream media continues to give space to these fanatics.” Later on in her lament she outs Jonathan Kay of the National Post by referring to one of his articles as “repellant libel” filled with “hateful comments.”

By Stephanie Gray (republished with permission) On the back of yet another tragic case of human pain and suffering, some abortion advocates try to push through their agenda of widespread access to killing the littlest amongst us.  The recent health problems of a pregnant woman and her pre-born child in El Salvador have been drawing worldwide attention—and some abortion advocates are riding on that attention to legalize something both unethical and unnecessary. Just like with the recent controversial pregnancy cases in Ireland and the Dominican Republic, in El Salvador, legalized abortion wasn’t, and isn’t, the answer either. In this most recent case, a 22-year-old woman identified only as Beatriz, was pregnant with a baby girl who had anencephaly.  Contrary to some reports which said the baby was “born without a brain,” the little girl did have a brain, albeit a damaged one (she had only a brain stem).  She lived for five hours after her recent birth by cesarean section which is proof that she had a damaged, not nonexistent, brain (otherwise she wouldn’t have lived for the brief time she did). The controversy surrounding Beatriz’s pregnancy should in no way have revolved around her baby girl’s likelihood of death post-birth, for surely those who will live longer don’t have a right to kill those who will live shorter.  Surely when one has only a brief time left with loved ones nearing death, one would maximize the little time that’s left, not minimize it.  Surely if grief would be borne at the child’s death post-birth after a full gestation of pregnancy, grief would be borne at the child’s death unnaturally through abortion earlier in pregnancy.  But there is a great difference between grief resulting from a loved one dying naturally, and grief resulting from a “loved” one being forcibly killed.  If we believe in fundamental human rights, then being “damaged” or “disabled” doesn’t nullify those basic rights. So what was the problem?  The fragile health of the mother, Beatriz.  Reports say she suffers from lupus and kidney failure.  As a result, abortion advocates were clamoring for Beatriz’s “right” to an abortion.  But abortion is not the response in this tragic scenario.  First, as The Edmonton Journal reported, “A majority of judges on the high court rejected the appeal by Beatriz's lawyers, saying physical and psychological exams by the government-run Institute of Legal Medicine found that her diseases were under control and that she could continue the pregnancy.” 

Dr. Henry Morgentaler is no longer with us. And we are left with a very different Canada than what he immigrated to in 1950. No one else will ever be able to claim that they personally ended the lives of more than 100,000 preborn children, had a big role in legalizing abortion, and then championed a court case that struck all of Canada’s remaining abortion laws down. Thanks largely to his efforts, Canada has the fewest restrictions on abortion in the entire world, tied only with communist North Korea. Women in this country can have an abortion at 41 weeks if they so desire, for any reasons at all, and paid for by tax payers. These are the facts. This is the nation that Morgentaler left behind. But what will Canada post-Morgentaler look like? Canada has felt the effects of abortion-on-demand for over a quarter century now. But instead of growing acceptance, the matter is no less divisive than it was in 1969 or 1988. Although the rhetoric of choice tries to paint a picture of freedom and celebration, Canadians can’t deny the real pain and brokenness that has resulted from over a quarter of our generation being eliminated before they could take their first breath. It’s the same contradiction that we see in Morgantaler’s life. Although he claimed to be an emancipator, he left a legacy of sexual exploitation of women while making millions of dollars from their “choices”. The winds of change are blowing.

Dear friends, Do you believe abortion laws are realistic for Canada? We do. A little over a year ago we started the WeNeedaLAW.ca campaign thanks to the sacrificial support of many of you. Our first year has made us even more confident that Canada can...

Join us in building support for these initiatives:

Subscribe