Civil disobedience needed in doctor assisted suicide

"Bruyère hospital says it will not offer the practice [of assisted suicide] or refer patients to doctors who do when it becomes legal. In a memo to staff Bruyère says it must follow with its sponsor, the Catholic Health Sponsors of Ontario. The CHSO provides sponsorship to 21 health care organizations and says the practice of physician assisted death is "incompatible with the mission and values of its Catholic Health providers.""

I hope a lot more hospitals follow suit. I hope hospitals and doctors across the entire country refuse to kill their patients.

Forcing doctors to kill patients or refer patients to be killed is wrong. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Some may say they have a right to assisted suicide. Wrong. They have a right to kill themselves, but they do not have the right to force someone else to be involved in this killing. Just because the Supreme Court of Canada said doctors have to do this, doesn't make it any less wrong. It is still wrong. It was wrong 100 years ago. It was wrong a 1000 years ago. And it is still wrong today.

Perhaps we need a little civil disobedience across this country? Perhaps this is what is needed?

How Canada tortured 2,542 preborn children in 2014

In 2014 Canadian doctors tortured and killed (through D&E abortions) at least 1,851 preborn children. (This does not include those abortions done in Quebec or in clinics, but hospitals only.) *

We can safely assume that the same percentage (7.5%) would also apply to Quebec, or 691 (9,221 X 7.5%) done in Quebec.

That's at least 2,542 D&E hospital abortions done in one year. (CIHI doesn't publish the types of abortions done in clinics so this number is likely much higher.)

What is interesting about this torturing of fetuses, is that Amnesty International thinks that women deprived of having an abortion are tortured.

"The total ban on abortion in El Salvador is nothing less than institutionalized violence against women and a form of torture or other ill-treatment."

In fact the word torture is used a total of 33 times in Amnesty's literature, as it relates to El Salvador not allowing women to undergo abortion there.

Some may not like my using the term torture to refer to the killing of preborn children in this manner. Those people should watch this video by Dr. Anthony Levatino. Dr. Levatino had performed over 1200 abortions before he gave up on doing abortions, and became pro-life. He describes for us, exactly what happens in a D&E abortion (done between 13 and 24 weeks of pregnancy).

This is the size of the baby in utero at 20 weeks. It is 7 inches long from head to rump and excluding the legs, or the size of a man'a hand.

After the woman is prepped, etc, the suction is turned on and pale yellow amniotic liquid is sucked out of the uterus.

The baby is too big to extract with the vacuum because she can't fit through the catheter. As well, the baby's limbs and head are too large to be removed by suction alone.

So a D&E is performed.

The sopher clamp is used for a D&E. This is a grasping instrument. It is about 13 inches long and made of stainless steal. The "business" end (Dr. Levatino actually called it that) is about 2 1/2 inches long and about 1/2 inch wide. There are rows of sharp teeth along it. When the sopher clamp gets hold of something, it does not let go. It is quite effective.

The abortionist uses this clamp to grasp an arm or a leg. Once he has a hold of something, he pulls hard in order to tear the limb from the baby's body.

In this illustration a leg has been pulled off and an arm is currently being extracted. One by one the rest of the limbs are removed, along with the intestines, the spine, and the heart and lungs.

Usually the most difficult part is extracting the baby's head which is the size of a large plum at 20 weeks. The head is grasped and crushed. The abortionist knows he's crushed the scull when a white substance comes out of the cervix. This was the baby's brains.

So what then is the real definition of torture? Is it preventing women from having an abortion? Or is it the dismemberment of a fetus, limb by limb, spine, intestines and lungs and then crushing her head?

* CIHI abortion stats 2014

Cassie and Molly's Law

This morning MP Cathay Wagantall introduced a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-225 into Parliament. (See Molly Matters for more information on Molly and Cassie.)

More info here.

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:

http://www.parl.gc.ca

1st Session, 42nd Parliament

64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

Preamble

Whereas Cassie Kaake was seven months pregnant and eagerly anticipating the birth of her daughter Molly when she was brutally murdered in Windsor, Ontario, in 2014;

Whereas no charges could be laid for Molly’s death because existing criminal law does not recognize the injury or death caused to a preborn child as a separate offence when a pregnant woman is the victim of a crime, even if the sole purpose of her attacker is to kill her child;

Whereas not being considered a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve protection under the law;

Whereas a majority of Canadians support the adoption of legislation that would make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother;

Whereas Parliament wishes to address this gap in the law and allow for two charges to be laid in such circumstances;

And whereas Parliament wishes to more strongly denounce violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short Title

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Offence — causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence

(2) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes the death of her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) if the person means to cause injury or death to the preborn child or injury to the mother that the person knows is likely to cause the preborn child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years,

(ii) if the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the preborn child, to imprisonment for life, or

(iii) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Reduced punishment

(3) An offence that would otherwise be punishable under subparagraph (2)‍(a)‍(i) may be punishable by imprisonment for life if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as described in section 232.

Offence — injuring a preborn child while committing an offence

(4) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes injury to her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding10 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Separate offence

(5) An offence referred to in this section is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the preborn child.

3 Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who they knew was pregnant,

4 Section 743.‍6 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.‍2):

Power of court to delay parole

(1.‍3) Despite section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, including a sentence of imprisonment for life, on conviction for an offence under subsection 238.‍1(2), the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with that Act.

Anti-choice Choice Joyce

Jeff Durham responds to Joyce Arthur's comment on this blog entry I wrote: The anti-choice pro-abortions.

Durham's response to Arthur is well worth the read.

Good-bye CFRA

I've had it with CRFA. Now they've laid off Mark Sutcliffe, John Counsell, Ron Corbett and Nick Vandergragt. This after they laid off other hosts a while ago, and Steve Winogron a year ago. Steve Madely retired recently (at least that's the official story).

Mark Sutcliffe was the only reason I've continued listening to CFRA as of late. Now that he's gone, well that's it for me. Rob Snow is still there, but for how long? And Brian Lilley is on in the evenings but I don't listen in the evenings.

Bell media owns CTV and CFRA and Lord knows I can't stand Bell (who lied to me) or CTV, who ripped apart CPCs in BC, based on Joyce Arthur's inaccurate, atrocious, nonsensical, fictitional "report":
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-charity-gives-dubious-abortion-advice-investigation-1.754309
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/national-christian-charity-probes-questionable-advice-on-abortion-1.754285
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/schools-suspend-counselling-centre-s-sex-ed-classes-1.754359

I don't know what Sutcliffe's or Corbett's abortion leanings are, but Counsell, Vandergragt, Madely, and Winogron were all pro-life. Interesting coincidence? 

CTV and Bell deserve each other. It's just too bad they had to decimate whatever was still good at CFRA.

Clinton or Rubio - who's pathetic?

More from Marco Rubio on his stand on abortion:

“To me, the issue of life is not a political issue; it’s a human rights issue,” Rubio said. “But it’s a difficult issue because it puts in conflict two competing rights. On the one hand is the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, which is a real right, and on the other is the right of an unborn human child to live. They’re in conflict and as a policy maker, I must choose which one of these two sides takes precedence. I’ve chosen to error on the side of life.” 

But unlike with marriage, Rubio invoked abortion as an issue in which he said he’s eager to challenge Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a general election. 

“Here’s what I find outrageous: In five Democratic debates, the media has not asked them a single question on abortion,” Rubio said. “And on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child. Why don’t they ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that partial-birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country, she thinks that is a fundamental right? They are the extremists when it comes to the issue of abortion, and I can’t wait to expose them in a general election.” 

“I just believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws,” Rubio said. “If I’m elected president, and there’s a bill passed that saves lives, but it has exceptions, I’ll sign it. But I do believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws. I’ve already said, for me, the issue of life is not a political issue, and I want to frank, I would rather lose an election, then be wrong on the issue of life.”

Here Hillary Clinton gets all indignant with Rubio:

"I think it's pretty pathetic," Clinton said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "This is something that illustrates how Senator Rubio has just been going as far as he can to try to, I guess, buttress his credentials with certain parts of the Republican constituency. I've been on record for years about where I stand on making abortions safe and legal, the exceptions that are appropriate that should be looked into. And the very difficult choices that very few women have to confront that lead to excruciating kinds of decisions."

Notice that Hillary has dropped the "rare" adjective from her Safe, Legal and Rare mantra. I think that's pathetic.

Planned Parenthood (apparently for the first time ever) endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's Planned Parenthood of selling-fetal-baby-parts fame. Planned Parenthood is also the biggest abortion business in the US. PP and Hillary. Partners. That's pathetic.

Hillary if you want to see pathetic, look in the mirror.

Protecting human life even if she doesn't have a birth certificate

Look at this guy, Republican Marco Rubio. Why can't we have a Canadian politician like this?

Rubio is unequivocally pro-life:

“I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not. Whether they can speak or not. Whether they can hire a lawyer or not. Whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live,” Rubio said during the debate. 

“What I have advocated is that we pass law in this country that says all human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection,” the GOP presidential candidate continued. “In fact, I think that law already exists. It is called the Constitution of the United States." 

Rubio added that he does not specifically support rape or incest exceptions, saying that “[while] I think both of those instances are horrifying…I personally believe you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy.” 

“The value of life is timeless,” he responded. “Science has decided that it’s human life. ….Abolustely it has? What else can it be? It can’t turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey.”

It's so refreshing to hear a politician who will speak out for pre-born children. Who won't let others silence him. Who isn't afraid to stand up and publicly call for their protection. Who has courage. Who doesn't bow to moral relativism. How wonderful.

Assisted suicide should NOT be done by doctors

From today's Ottawa Citizen regarding Dr. Margaret Somerville's take on physician assisted dying:

"She said the harms and risks can be limited if government adopts these recommendations: 

• To avoid the future “normalization” of physician-assisted dying, any new law must make it clear that it is an exception, should only be used as a last resort, and will be used rarely.

“If Canada had the same percentage of total deaths of deaths by (physician-assisted dying) as the Netherlands and Belgium currently have (about 4 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively) we would have between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths each year.” 

• Patients requesting such a death must first be offered high-quality palliative care, including fully adequate pain management.

• A new profession should be established to carry out physician-assisted dying. The practitioners should not be health care professionals or, if so, only ones who have permanently retired from practice. Practitioners should be specially trained, licensed and have travel money provided to give people across Canada equal access to euthanasia.

“For nearly 2,500 years, physicians and the profession of medicine have recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia are not medical treatment and this position should be maintained and these interventions kept out of medicine,” Somerville told the committee.
“If this approach is not adopted, two publicly available lists of physicians and institutions should be established, those which will provide euthanasia and those which will not. This is a reasonable compromise between Canadians who agree with euthanasia and those who oppose or fear it.” 

• Assisted death should be restricted to people who are terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than four weeks, from a physical illness, disease or disability and experiencing extreme physical suffering.

It should not be allowed for children unable to consent for themselves. “Whether it should be available for ‘mature minors’ is a separate question.” 

• There must be psychiatric consultation to rule out depression, or coercion, undue influence of others, or duress, “at the least where there is any possibility of these factors affecting the request or consent to it or any doubts about the person’s mental competency.”

• A Superior Court judge should certify that all legal requirements for access to the procedure have been met.

• There must be a minimum 15-day waiting after the patient’s request to die.

• A national research and review body should be established to collect records of all cases, investigate where there might have been non-compliance with the law, and report, at least annually, in a way that does not breach individuals’ privacy, but informs Parliament, provincial legislatures, courts, professional licensing and disciplinary bodies, medical institutions, the public.

“This body should also be able to make recommendations for changes in law, regulations or practice when these are needed to prevent abuse of euthanasia or to protect vulnerable people.”"

I agree with Dr. Somerville especially about doctors not being the killers, and said so in this letter to the National Post in December 2014:

"Should Canada ever find itself in the sorry state wherein assisted suicide is legal, it should not be up to the doctors to perform this task. Doctors went into medicine to save lives, not to end them. Doctors are healers, not killers.

Instead, there should be a new “death technician” job for euthanasia and assisted suicide. These people would be technicians who are trained in killing people. They can’t be doctors, because obviously, it is a conflict of interest to be a doctor and also to end people’s lives. When we see one of these “death technicians” walking the halls of the hospital, there would be no mistake as to what their duties are.

When and if I am ever in the hospital knowing that my life is nearing its natural end, I want to make sure that my doctor — who has my life in his hands — would never ever willfully aid in my demise. Conversely if I see the death technician enter my room, there would be no doubt as to why he’s there."