Patrick Craine

,

Woodworth’s Motion 312 defeated 91 to 203

Patrick Craine
Patrick Craine
Image

OTTAWA, Sept. 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Stephen Woodworth’s pro-life motion failed in a recorded vote Wednesday, going down 91-203.

As promised, Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted against it, but there were also a number of surprise votes in favour.

Woodworth, a Tory MP for Kitchener Centre, had hoped to launch a special committee to re-examine section 223 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which stipulates that a child only becomes a human being once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb. But pro-life legislators must now head back to the drawing board.

Nevertheless, pro-life leaders have hailed the initiative as a success because of the overwhelming amount of media coverage and interest it sparked in the last few months.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that the motion was “quite valuable” to the pro-life cause. “It’s been a tremendous effort right across the country,” he said. “It was a very sensible type of motion that unfortunately was ignored or dumped upon by people who don’t want anything at all that’s even remotely connected to abortion. We saw that with Rod Bruinooge’s bill on coercion and Leon Benoit’s on unborn victims of crime.”

The motion fared slightly worse than the most recent pro-life initiative before it – Rod Bruinooge’s Roxanne’s Law, which sought to ban the coercion of women into abortion. That bill was defeated 97-178 in a second reading vote on December 15, 2010.

The vast majority of the 91 votes in favour came from the Conservative benches, and the Opposition NDP opposed it unanimously. But there were four Liberal MPs who supported it: John McKay, Jim Karygiannis, Kevin Lamoureux, and Lawrence MacAulay.

All party leaders opposed Motion 312, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who reportedly pressured Conservative MPs to vote against it even though the party ultimately allowed a free vote for both backbench MPs and Ministers.

It did win support from a number of Tory Ministers, despite Harper’s pressure tactics, however. They included: Diane Ablonczy, Rona Ambrose, Peter Van Loan, Gerry Ritz, Julian Fantino (who had voted against Roxanne’s Law), Peter Penashue, Ed Fast and Jason Kenney.

Two Ministers who have been rated pro-life by Campaign Life Coalition voted against the motion: Gary Goodyear and Rob Nicholson.

“I’m calling on people across the country to take a very close look at how their MPs voted on this,” said Hughes. “We’ll be getting together with them to develop a strategy to replace those MPs.”

Though Woodworth framed the initiative as merely a scientific study into the humanity of the unborn, critics lambasted it as a “backdoor” attempt to renew debate on abortion and ultimately re-criminalize the deadly procedure.

In the second hour of debate on Friday, both Liberal and New Democrat opponents expressed incredulity that the issue was even being raised.

New Democrat MP Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe) said she was “offended” by the motion, describing it as a “slap in the face” to women.

But Woodworth says section 223 is a 400-year-old law inherited from Britain and should be brought up to date with the medical advances of the last century.

“It would be a triumph of leadership to insist that our definition of human being must not remain frozen in time forever, immune from the light of advancing knowledge, immune from democratic governance, and immune from the spirit of open dialogue,” he said.

As it is, the law “decrees the dehumanization and exclusion of a whole class of people, children before complete birth,” Woodworth said.

Contact information for all those who voted for the motion:

Diane.Ablonczy@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Harold.Albrecht@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @AlbrechtMP
Mike.Allen@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @mpmika
Stella.Ambler@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @StellaAmbler
Rona.Ambrose@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MinRonaAmbrose
Rob.Anders@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
David.Anderson@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @DavidAndersonSK
Dean.Allison@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @DeanAllisonMP
Leon.Benoit@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @vwriding
Candice.Bergen@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @CandiceBergenMP
James.Bezan@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @jamesbezan
Kelly.Block@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @KellyBlockCPC
Ray.Boughen@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Garry.Breitkreuz@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Patrick.Brown@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @brownbarrie
Gordon Brown - gord.brown.c1@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Lois.Brown@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MPLoisBrown
Rod.Bruinooge@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @rodbruinooge
Blaine.Calkins@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @blainecalkinsmp
Ron.Cannan@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @RonCannon
Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @ColinCarrie
Michael.Chong@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Rob.Clarke@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @Rob_Clarke_MP
Patricia Davidson - pat.davidson@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Dean.DelMastro@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @mpdeandelmastro
Barry.Devolin@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BarryDevolin_MP
Earl.Dreeshen@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @earl_dreeshen
Julian.Fantino@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @JulianFantino
Ed.Fast@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Royal.Galipeau@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @GalipeauOrleans
Cheryl.Gallant@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @cherylgallant
Peter.Goldring@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @PeterGoldring
Nina.Grewal@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MPNinaGrewal
Richard.Harris@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Bryan.Hayes@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Russ.Hiebert@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @HiebertRuss
Jim.Hillyer@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Laurie.Hawn@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MPLaurieHawn
Roxanne.James@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Brian.Jean@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BrianJean_MP
Randy.Kamp@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @RandyKampMP
Jim.Karygiannis@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @jimkarygiannis
Jason.Kenney@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @kenneyjason
Ed.Komarnicki@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Mike.Lake@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MikeLakeMP
Kevin.Lamoureux@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @Kevin_Lamoureux
Guy.Lauzon@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Pierre.Lemieux@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Wladyslaw.Lizon@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Ben.Lobb@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Tom.Lukiwski@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @TomLukiwski
James.Lunney@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @jameslunneymp
Lawrence.MacAulay@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @L_MacAulayMP
Colin.Mayes@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Phil.McColeman@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @Phil4Brant
John.McKay@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @JohnMcKayLib
Rob.Merrifield@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @RobMerrifieldMP
Larry.Miller@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @M2McMullen
Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @RobMoore_CPC
Rick.Norlock@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @RickNorlock
Tilly.O’NeillGordon - oneilt@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Ted.Opitz@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @TedOpitz
LaVar.Payne@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @LaVarMP
Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @PeterPenashue
Pierre.Poilievre@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @PierrePoilievre
James.Rajotte@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @JamesRajotte
Brent.Rathgeber@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @brentrathgeber
Gerry.Ritz@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @GerryRitzMP
Kyle.Seeback@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @KyleSeeback
Gail.Shea@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @CPCGailShea
Bev.Shipley@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BevShipleyMP
Kevin.Sorenson@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BevShipleyMP
Brian.Storseth@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BrianStorsethMP
Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @markstrahl
David.Sweet@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @DavidSweetMP
Lawrence.Toet@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @votetoet
Brad.Trost@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @BradTrostCPC
Merv.Tweed@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @mervtweet
Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @bobzimmermp
John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @j_dup_mp
Alice.Wong@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @AliceWongCanada
Stephen.Woodworth@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @WoodworthMP
Terence.Young@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @TerenceYoungMP
Rodney.Weston@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @rodneywestonsj
Mark.Warawa@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MPmarkwarawa
Chris.Warkentin@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @chriswarkentin
Jeff.Watson@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
John.Weston@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @JohnWestonMP
Dave.VanKesteren@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Peter.VanLoan@parl.gc.ca Twitter: n/a
Maurice.Vellacott@parl.gc.ca Twitter: @MVellacott

**See the complete official vote that also includes all those who voted NO on the Parliamentary website here. Clicking on each name also brings up the full contact information for each MP

Contact information for all Members of Parliament.


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
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
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