Tony Gosgnach

Mary Wagner takes witness stand at her trial

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach
Image

TORONTO, December 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After two days of testimonies from abortion personnel at Toronto’s “Women’s Care Clinic” on Lawrence Avenue West, it was time Thursday for Mary Wagner to take the witness stand and offer her version of events that transpired at the abortion centre on August 12, 2012.

She is on trial on charges of mischief and three counts of failing to comply with probation orders for entering the centre that day with pamphlets and roses and attempting to counsel women to keep their babies. She has remained in prison since that time, refusing to accept bail conditions for reasons of conscience. The trial is being held before Justice Fergus O’Donnell.

The trial had heard from head abortionist Saira Markovic, head nurse/office manager Khatija Akoojee and receptionists Jane Yoon and April Cabaluna, as well as Toronto Police Service Constable Richard Mau. The Crown concluded its case when proceedings began Thursday morning.

Wagner then took the witness stand, to be questioned by her counsel, Dr. Charles Lugosi. He began by asking about her life and role models. Wagner responded by calling Mother Teresa of Calcutta one of her major influences. “She showed how our faith can be animated through loving our neighbor,” she said.

She added she formed her pro-life views through the example of her mother specifically, who went through several difficult pregnancies and was willing to lay her life down for her biological brothers and sisters, and her parents generally, who fostered numerous children over a period of a decade and a half.

A visit to the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp also impacted her, especially reading the guest book that included entries from people signing it, “Never again.” She realized history is repeating itself and began to weep in court.

After taking a moment to regain her composure, Wagner said she was moved to give more of herself and so her pro-life involvement began in her late teens, when she volunteered for the crisis pregnancy agency Birthright. She was also influenced by the example of Joan Andrews Bell, who was arrested a number of times for peaceful pro-life activism.

Relocating to Ontario, Wagner said she was arrested in March 2010 while attending at a Bloor Street, Toronto abortion site. She did it, she said, because she felt “called to protect my neighbor who is in danger,” realizing that “each human life is precious and each human life begins at conception.”

She said she has since been arrested some half-dozen times, serving a total of over two years in prison for her actions. “I’m not deterred by that. Human beings in the womb are worth protecting.”

She acknowledged being named a recipient of the Queen’s Jubilee Medal for her efforts to protect human life, though she said she has not yet physically received it. She added she does not see herself as a criminal, as some critics of her receiving the medal have charged, because she believes she has not committed any moral wrongdoing.

“I hope people will see beyond human laws,” she said. “Human beings are being killed.”

To those who charge she is interfering with “a woman’s choice,” she asks: “What is the choice? The choice to do what? … The termination of a pregnancy is the killing of a human being.”

She said of all places women should get education on embryology and fetal development, it should be at an abortion site. “We need to be there … It’s the last chance for a human being in the womb to be protected … And a woman needs to know there is support for her and her baby.”

Asked if she is willing to pay the price for her beliefs, including possibly spending her entire life in jail, she replied she hoped she would have the strength to do that if necessary, as God has already given her the strength to minister thus far.

Lugosi then questioned Wagner about whether she would return to an abortion site upon her eventual release. “I likely will,” she replied.

Asked specifically about her entry into the Markovic site, Wagner said she was intending to protect human beings from abortion. She would do this by “approaching mothers with love.”

She said she followed a couple into the site, then approached a woman in the waiting room, knelt down, offered her a rose and said, “This is for you. I’m here to support you and your baby.” She said it was not her intention to upset anyone. Almost immediately, she was interrupted by Yoon, who told her to leave.

“My intention was to reach out to mothers, encourage them and offer them support … My hope was that some would accept the support that was offered.” She added if someone was not willing to listen, she respected their decision and moved on to another person.

Akoojee then entered and also told Wagner to leave. The nurse then “got in my way and put her hands on me … I said, ‘This is an assault.’ She said, ‘You can charge me if you want.’” Akoojee then let her go as people were moved out of the waiting room.

Wagner said she then said through a glass partition, “Don’t do this,” and tried the door handle to enter the adjoining room. She was grabbed by Akoojee and Yoon, who eventually pulled her into the hallway as Wagner tried to stand her ground.

In the hallway, Wagner began praying as suddenly, Markovic came out and started screaming, “You’re a psycho!” and “Go f--- yourself.” Wagner said she is certain it was Markovic who uttered those words as she saw that woman on the witness stand at the trial last Friday.

Markovic went back inside and, as Wagner approached other people entering the abortion centre, Akoojee was talking over her, telling them, “Don’t listen to her.” Later, she said Akoojee threatened her with words to the effect of, “I can do much more than this to you.”

When police arrived, Wagner told them she would not leave voluntarily, because “staying here is the only way I can show love and respect to the children being killed.” She said she did not see women crying, as abortion personnel testified happened, but added she would not have been surprised if they were, given the gravity of what they were doing.

Asked by Lugosi if there had been violence during the incident, Wagner said there had been. “Twenty babies were killed and I was assaulted physically and verbally.” She characterized her actions as truthful, peaceful, non-violent and in no way a verbal assault.

She concluded by setting the stage for the planned constitutional challenge of Canada`s abortion law, stating that she was acting under Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which sanctions self-defence of a human being, and acknowledged the trial would serve as a test case in challenging the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, one is not considered human until fully born.

She agreed that, because Parliament will not amend the abortion law of its own accord, she is taking it upon herself to do it.

Perhaps surprisingly, Crown attorney Tracey Vogel had no questions for Wagner, thus ending the trial proper. The case now moves to the consideration of Wagner’s standing for a constitutional challenge, to begin with a hearing in Room 308 of the Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West at Dufferin Street in Toronto, on February 4 at 2:15 p.m.

Just before Wagner was handcuffed and led back to the holding cells, Lugosi asked O’Donnell if he would be willing to release Wagner on bail without conditions so she could enjoy freedom for the Christmas season. O’Donnell replied it was tragic that Wagner remains in custody, but the bail conditions are as bare as they can be short of unconditional release. Wagner, he said, “has to make her choice … she is the architect of her future … It’s not within my control. She makes her choice. ”

As Wagner will be imprisoned over the Christmas season, those wishing to send Wagner cards or letters at the jail can find guidelines for doing so through a previous LifeSitenews article.

See related LifeSiteNews articles:

 
 
 
 
 

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