Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

,

Development and Peace invites leader of pro-abortion partner group to speak in Canada

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Image
Image

March 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P), which is currently on a Lenten fundraising drive in Catholic churches across Canada, has invited the leader of a pro-abortion Mexican “human rights” organization, which is also a D&P funding recipient, to speak at various parishes from March 30 to April 7.

According to D&P’s Share Lent website, Fr. Luis Arriaga, leader of the “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Center for Human Rights” (Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez), is scheduled to make appearances at various locations in eastern Ontario. On Saturday, April 2, Fr. Arriaga will speak at the Ottawa diocesan centre. Local Catholic pro-life activists will be holding a “protest and prayer” vigil outside the diocesan centre.

As LifeSiteNews has documented in previous reports, Fr. Arriaga and the Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Center (PRODH) have been involved in abortion advocacy since at least 2005, signing numerous pro-abortion declarations and opposing a pro-life amendment to the constitution of the state of Jalisco.  However, this news agency has recently learned that both PRODH and Fr. Arriaga also personally support the pro-abortion organization “Catholics for the Right to Decide,” a group condemned by the Catholic Church for promoting the legalization of abortion and falsely claiming that killing the unborn is compatible with Catholic doctrine.

In November of 2010, after calling LifeSiteNews.com “nasty” for exposing his organization’s pro-abortion activities, Fr. Arriaga shared the stage at an award ceremony with Consuelo Mejía, director of Catholics for the Right to Decide, and the pro-abortion Marisa Belausteguigoitia of the University Program for Gender Studies (PUEG), applauding them both on their work. The award, named after the anti-Catholic feminist Hermila Galindo, was given by the Mexico City government’s Human Rights Commission, which simultaneously gave Arriaga a “special mention” certificate for his own work.

The event is advertised on the PRODH website itself, where the organization says “The PRODH center congratulates [the Mexico City government] for this decision that supports the outstanding career of Consuelo Mejia and the PUEG in the defense of the rights of women and the promotion of gender equality.”  A photo of of a smiling Arriaga receiving the award with Mejía is shown on the site.  (NOTE: Following publication of this article, PRODH removed the page from their website. However, LSN captured the page in a PDF, which can be seen here)

In an article about the event published by the pro-abortion news service CIMAC, Arriaga is also quoted as saying that in the struggle for women’s rights, “we recognize the support of the activity carried out by Consuelo Mejía and the PUEG, who have taught us lessons about new types of human relations, for the consolidation of an egalitarian society.”

In the same article, Mejía comments that the award is important because it highlights the plight of women “who dare to exercise their right to decide over their bodies,” while PEUG representative Marisa Belausteguigoitia complains that “in 17 states of the republic, women are obligated to give birth in all circumstances.”

The event was not the first time Arriaga and PRODH have participated in the promotion of “Catholics for the Right to Decide.”  As LifeSiteNews reported in 2010, Arriaga was a panel speaker for the organization’s 15th anniversary celebration, according to the Mexican radio station Radio Bemba (see article in Spanish here.) The panels were organized “to reflect on the contribution of this organization [Catholics for the Right to Decide] to the defense of the human rights of women and girls and the challenges that churches have regarding the topic of sexual and reproductive rights,” according to the radio station.


A history of pro-abortion activism

As LifeSiteNews (LSN) has previously reported, Fr. Arriaga’s organization has signed its name to many pro-abortion declarations. In 2008 PRODH signed a public declaration, published in the Guadalajara newspaper Publico, which specifically denounced a proposed pro-life constitutional amendment because it “intends to recognize rights for the unborn, against what is established by our constitutional system,” and “would eliminate the right of the women of Jalisco to interrupt a pregnancy.”

The declaration in Spanish can be found here, and an English translation can be found here.

The organization also signed on to a number of other “human rights” declarations in between 2005 and 2009 that included statements advocating the decriminalization of abortion and the availability of abortion in public hospitals (see LSN coverage here  and here). It is also a member of the pro-abortion “All Rights for Everyone Network” (Red Todos los Derechos para Todos y Todas), which is an open supporter of Mexico City’s law legalizing and subsidizing abortion on demand during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The “All Rights for Everyone Network” includes the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Center’s name in its pro-abortion pronouncements.


Non-denial denials

After LSN first exposed the PRODH Center’s signature on two “human rights” declarations that included pro-abortion statements in March of 2009, the organization responded with a brief statement claiming it had signed the documents “with the intention of supporting the general cause of human rights in Mexico; not in order to specifically support the legalization of abortion.”  However, it did not confirm or deny that it is a supporter of legalized abortion.

Fr. Arriaga later gave an interview to the Catholic Register, the Toronto diocese’s official newspaper, in which he denounced LSN’s coverage as “nasty,” and said simply that his group is “not focused on sexual or reproductive rights. This is not our specialty. Our focus is on the defence and promotion of civil and political rights.”

As LSN revealed in a series of articles during 2009 and 2010, D&P has allocated millions of dollars to pro-abortion groups in various nations as part of its 2006-2011 plan.  Fr. Arriaga’s PRODH itself received $24,000 Canadian Dollars in 2007-2008 year according to D&P, and is still a funding recipient, despite the revelation of its pro-abortion activities.

Although in recent months the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has claimed that pro-abortion groups have been cut from funding, Arriaga’s speaking invitation and D&P’s continuing support for the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Center indicate that Development and Peace is continuing its policy of supporting pro-abortion organizations.

Locations of Fr. Arriaga’s speaking events scheduled at this time:

April 2, 10:00 am - 11:30 am

Conference Room, Diocesan Center
(protest scheduled)
1247 Kilborn Avenue, Ottawa
Click here for Google map

April 3, 9:00-11:30 am

St. Augustine Parish

1060 Baseline Road,
Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 0A6
Phone: (613) 225-7388
Fax: 613-225-6721
Web
Click here for Google Map of parish

April 3, 6:30 -7:30 PM (“Life Teen” mass)

Divine Infant Parish,
6658 Bilberry Drive
Orleans, ON, K1C 2S9
Phone: 613-824-6822
Fax: 613-834-7459
Website

Contact Information:

Contact information for every Canadian bishop

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
2500 Don Reid Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1H 2J2
E-mail: cecc@cccb.ca
Phone: (613) 241-9461
Fax: (613) 241-9048

Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace
Phone: 514-257-8711
Email: info@devp.org
Website

Note: see Composing Effective Communications in Response to LifeSiteNews Reports

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Development and Peace Funding of Pro-Abortion Groups 2009 / 2010


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook