Pro-life clubs - What are universities afraid of anyway?

Another University pro-life group has been denied club status. This time at Ryerson University:

"In the fall semester we came together to form a student group called Students For Life at Ryerson (SFLR) and applied for club status through the Ryerson Student Union (RSU). In order to be approved and gain club status, we needed a majority vote from Ryerson Student Groups Committee. Unfortunately this did not happen.  Instead we got an email from a student group’s representative stating that we were denied club status because the union  “opposes…groups, meetings, or events that promote misogynist views towards woman [sic] and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right [sic] to bodily autonomy, or justifies [sic] sexual assault”. They provided us no evidence on how our group promoted misogyny or how we justified sexual assault which left us confused and offended. It was never (and never will be) our intention to marginalize, discriminate or judge women and so for our student union to make such allegations against us proves their misunderstanding of our group. After launching an appeal, our group waited a full month before being given the opportunity to appeal the denial of our student club. As a result of our meeting with our student union we were given the opportunity to plead our case for club status one last time in front of our Board of Directors. After an hour long meeting of more scrutinizing questions we were denied club status yet again by a unanimous vote."

What is it about Universities, that they are so offended by pro-life people, that they must be barred from campuses? What are these universities afraid of anyway, the truth?

And what ever happened to free speech on university campuses anyway?

"Legal action requires finances, and as two university students, there is not much we can do to contribute to the financial side of fighting for our rights. We need to raise $20,000 for various legal fees. Although this poses a great challenge, we refuse to let finances hold us back! We are aiming to reach out to pro-life individuals, groups, and communities, as well as individuals who support free speech, to help support us reach our financial goal. 

It is challenging being a pro-life student and advocate, but it is even more challenging when our own student union will not allow us to express our right to free speech because we do not align with the status quo. Please consider donating so that you can help us stand up for our rights but more importantly  the rights of the unborn. 

Click here for more information on donating."

Pro-abortions drop dangerous drugs into Poland

Women on Waves is going to dump Mifepristone (or RU-486) onto Poland. Literally.

They are flying the abortion drug in using drones.

Abortion is illegal in Poland. But that won't stop these people. And RU-486 is a very dangerous drug. Especially for women in remote areas with no access to emergency care:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-4-more-on-safety-and-remote.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/01/ru-486-can-be-lethal-for-women-in.html

But according to the Star article, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, the founder of Women on Waves, says the drug is safe:

"women in the drone campaign should feel safe taking the pill without direct medical supervision and will receive instructions on what to expect, and when to seek medical attention, from their partnering organizations."

That's not what Renate Klein--a pro-choice person--thinks. In Klein's book (RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals), she says:

"Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy." 

Then Gomperts tells the women to lie to their doctor if there are complications.

"If complications do arise, Women on Waves advises the women to tell their doctor that they miscarried." 

So how can these women be properly treated if they lie to their doctor about the dangerous drug they took?

It seems the pro-abortions will stop at nothing to ply their deadly trade. I hope that none of these women are killed by this drug.

We need a Law announces election tour

From We need a Law:

"It is our goal that Canada's leaders don't ignore the injustice that is being committed against 100,000 of our pre-born neighbours every year. Lord willing, lifeTOUR will be hosting events in 18 cities from Charlottetown to Vancouver!

Canadians are perhaps, more than ever, fixated on important political issues during an election campaign. The 2015 election gives us a prime opportunity to inject the narrative of pre-born human rights into the issues being discussed by media and the politicians vying for Canadians' votes.

We invite you to check out lifeTOUR.ca and stay tuned for more details as the summer progresses."

Aborting babies with Down Syndrome is not "Human"

After a series of tweets calling children born with Down Syndrome "defective", anonymous blogger feels the need to defend herself with this blog entry: The Down Side: Prenatal Testing and Its Consequences.

Here is some of what she said in her blog post:

"[Renate Lindeman], a "spokesperson for Dutch parent group Downpride." claims that Down Syndrome screening is about "eliminating a group of people."

No, it's not. It's individual parents and families, offered tests, given results, thinking it over, and making individual decisions based on their own desires and capacities. 

In other words, people taking advantage of technological ingenuity to get information in order to make their own choices about their own families. 

It doesn't get more human than this. 

I took crap on Twitter the other day for calling Down Syndrome a defect, admonished rather to use the term "different."...

It's not evil, it's not genocide, and it certainly is not Nazi.  

And the state has no fucking business in it. At. All. 

Note to commenters: Yes. I know Down Syndrome people can be lovely, joyful people. And to people who choose to birth and bring up these children, good on you. But your saintliness gives you no right to shit on people who choose not to."

I just watched a remarkable documentary called "Abigail & Brittany Hensel - The Twins Who Share a Body". Abigail and Brittany are conjoined identical twins.

Are these girls also "defective" and worthy of eliminating? Because they sure don't go by the text book definition of what is human.

What about someone who is born with limbs missing like thalidomide babies in the 1960's? Also "defective" and worthy of eliminating?

Being human means you are born into the human species. You are a human being. Not a single one of us is perfect. And what about babies born who will go on to develop mental illness? And babies with a hole in their heart or with with one foot? And what about babies with genetic disorders like those with Down Syndrome?

If we can eliminate children before birth because they are "defective", what's to stop us from eliminating them after birth as well? Where does it stop? Who decides who is to live and who is to die? Anonymous blogger says its "not evil, it's not genocide, and it certainly is not Nazi" to eliminate these humans. That's exactly what it is. The Nazis wanted to create the perfect human race, devoid of Jews, Poles, Catholics, Gypsy's and homosexuals. We call that eugenics.

Aborting children born with Down Syndrome is just more of the same evil, genocidal Nazism. Saying it's not, doesn't make it true.

Does Justin Trudeau realize who he's flirting with?

"...Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies..." (Fleetwood Mac 1987)

Justin Trudeau is not stupid. Justin Trudeau is not ignorant.

So why did he tell the CBC this morning, that women have a charter right to abortion? 

Trudeau said:

"A Woman's right to choose is a charter right."

This isn't true.

Is it because he is doing the populace thing and telling (some) people what he thinks they want to hear? Is he doing it to get votes? Why is he courting the radical feminists?

He's not saying this for the "pro-choice" crowd--those who don't support unlimited abortion for any reason at any time.

It's the pro-abortions this would appeal to, a very small minority of (mostly) women who are extreme abortion advocates who believe late term abortion is okay; who believe sex-selection abortion is okay; who believe any abortion is always okay. The ones who worship at the altar of abortion.

I can't think of any other reasons he'd say this.

Dear Justin, 

The Charter doesn't give women the right to abortion. You know this. 

It does your credibility no good when you make up stuff about the Charter. It puts you in the same category as the pro-abortions who do this all the time. Is this really who you want to be identified with? 

I strongly suggest you rethink your strategy. I don't think this is the company you want to keep. 

Sincerely,
etc. etc.

The pro-life politician who dares to say the word abortion

Carly Fiorina is a Republican and running for the Republican nomination in the United States. 

I don't follow American politics much, but this woman is an excellent speaker and seems to know what she is talking about. And oh, she's pro-life. 

When Whoopi asks Fiona about "choice", Fiona responds by immediately using the "abortion" word. No euphemisms for Fiona. Gutsy lady.

And I love this line where she says:

"The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA on the day you die."

I'd love to see Fiona up against Hillary. That would be awesome.

Why can't Canadian women politicians have the guts to speak out like this?

Feminists ignore the ISIL crimes against women

What gives? In an article  in the National Post Robert Fulford asks: where are the feminists in the atrocities in Iraq?

He notes that:

"...Phyllis Chesler, a feminist psychologist and author in the U.S., has responded by lamenting the fact that Western feminists have offered no support to the women who are Daesh’s [ISIL] victims. 

This is not a new theme for Chesler. A few years ago, in her book The Death of Feminism, she argued that feminism had abandoned women in Muslim-majority countries. Kate Millett said that Chesler was “sounding a warning to the West that it ignores to its peril.” But it was largely ignored. 

Chesler now says, in a statement issued by the Middle East Forum, that feminists have lost their way. They need to rekindle their original passion for universal justice. Fifty years ago, they launched a campaign for freedom and equality. That inspired a revolution in the West and a fresh vision for girls and women everywhere. 

But today feminists ignore the ISIL crimes against women. “An astounding public silence has prevailed,” Chesler says. “The National Organization for Women (NOW) apparently doesn’t think ISIL is a problem.” NOW’s upcoming annual conference doesn’t list ISIL or Boko Haram on its agenda. The most recent conference dedicated to women’s studies dealt with foreign policy but considered only Palestine. 

Today’s feminists, she adds, are disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism while ignoring Islam’s long history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery and forced conversion.

Since ISIL is insanely misogynist, it calls out especially for attention from anyone especially concerned with the female half of humanity. 

Her arguments make sense. The struggle against the Islamic State and its caliphate will need enormous public support. We can’t expect that to be given easily by citizens and politicians who believe they have more pressing problems. Since ISIL is insanely misogynist, it calls out especially for attention from anyone especially concerned with the female half of humanity.""

So why aren't Canadian feminists speaking out in support of the women in Iraq and other countries in the Middle East? Is it because they're too busy speaking out against Christians?

Pro-life truths use real photos

It's strange that the pro-abortions think that an abortion can't possibly look like a child. Why is that?

They seem to prefer to think of it as bloody tissue sitting in a flask. I think it must make them feel better, when the child that's been vacuumed to death bears no resemblance to its humanity.

But why then, do they have to call pro-life people liars when we show them an aborted child that looks too human for them?

Do they just need to ease their own consciences?

Bernard Nathanson - a thorn in NARAL's side

When I was researching Dr. Bernard Nathanson for this post, I learned about his colleague Dr. Lawrence Lader. The two of them together made up stuff about abortion (this is a well known fact now). Along with feminist Betty Friedman, the three of them created what would become NARAL:

"Nathanson began performing abortions in the 1960s and later headed a major New York clinic where he oversaw 60,000 abortions. In 1969 he joined with feminist Betty Friedan and activist Lawrence Lader in founding the National Assn. for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, and served as its medical director."

Here's the interesting thing about Mr. Lader. I found at least five obituaries (1) for him. But not one of them mention his association with Bernard Nathanson. Yet all of them mention his relationship Betty Friedman. I also noticed that none of the obituaries mention the lies the two men made up about abortion.

Nathanson and Lader had three ways of doing this (2):

"The First Key Tactic was to capture the media: We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority..." 

"The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card: We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favor of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions." 

"The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception
...A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. 

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion...[note that these numbers were written in 1997. I wonder what the current income from abortion is now in the US?]"

I can only imagine that Dr. Bernard Nathanson became a huge thorn in NARAL's side: after he spilled the beans about their lies and after becoming pro-life.

Of course their relationship wouldn't be mentioned in Lader's obituary. What was I thinking?

(1) Lawrence Lader's obituaries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10lader.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002319.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/14/local/me-lader14
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630078/posts
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/05/15/lawrence_lader_leading_abortion_rights_activist/?page=full

(2) Source: Bernard Nathanson: “Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist” In The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind. Copyright © 1997 Regenery Publishing (www.regnery.com)

Conservatives - Tell a story, change the world

This is an excellent talk by Ann McElhinney given at the Heritage Resource Bank. It's about 35 minutes long.

Ann is the maker of the upcoming Gosnell documentary. Kermit Gosnell was the biggest serial killer in American history.

If you haven't already donated to the Gosnell movie, Ann asks that you donate just one dollar. (But this is not the main point of her talk.)

Ann tells us how the left makes movies, and their movies contain the left's messages. We see it all the time. Their "story" is always part of the movie.

We need to learn from the left to get our own messages out (I can't believe I'm saying that but it is true). We have to tell our stories. Just like they do.

Big abortion - believing the lie