Natalie N. Brumfield

The afternoon God introduced me to Israel outside a Planned Parenthood clinic

Natalie N. Brumfield
By Natalie Brumfield
Image

November 30, 2012 (Bound4Life.com) - I was walking the public sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic on my usual Thursday afternoon lunch break, praying. The Planned Parenthood abortion center is tucked between a couple of apartment buildings and some older mansions that are being sluggishly reconstructed downtown. It’s not unusual that this side of the neighborhood is fairly quiet, excepting the common flow of traffic coming in and out of the abortion center.

I was by myself praying.

The traffic seemed to die down at the abortion center and so my eyes were looking up at the buildings as I prayed for Life to flow into our city. I stopped mid-prayer when my eyes fell on someone watching me from several hundred yards away sitting on the steps of an apartment building staircase. People staring at me praying isn’t too unfamiliar. I would wonder what was going on too, if I saw someone praying by themselves and walking the same sidewalk for an extended amount of time.

But something was different about this spectator. And right on time, like always, I felt the Lord nudge me forward, “Go on, go to him.” I wasn’t in a social mood. I just wanted to pray for the babies and moms and then go back to work. As I scanned the abortion center, I saw the parking lot was almost empty. I looked back towards the spectator and felt it again, “Go.”

I started walking and watched for his eyes until I saw the realization that I was walking towards him settle in. He was on his cell phone when I walked up and he politely covered up the mouth piece. He didn’t say a word and just waited to hear what I would say to him.

“Hi. I came over to see you if I could pray with you.”

“What?” He asked looking confused.

“I came over to see if I could pray with you.”

“Yeah, ok. Hold on one second.”

To my total amazement he told the person on the other line that he had to go and he would call them back in a few minutes. Clearly, the boy with the baseball cap with traces of smudged eyeliner on his lids from the night before was not afraid of the weird prayer girl. I don’t want to be the weird prayer girl nor do I like people thinking that of me. But what I do want to be is the prayer girl who follows when the Spirit leads and loves people like Jesus does. This was an amazing moment. The boy with the baseball cap and smudged eyeliner said “yes” to me praying with him. I couldn’t wait to see what God was going to do.

“So what’s your name?” I asked so we didn’t have to be total strangers.

“Israel,” He said matter of factly.

“Your name is Israel? Seriously?” I said in bewilderment.

“Yes,” he said, smiling now.

God had me leave the abortion center sidewalk to go and pray for Israel. I thought it was amusing, but at the same time, incredible. I was praying for Life to come into the city so God sent me one more city block down to pray for a life named Israel. He is God’s child, too, and needed prayer as much as the babies and parents across the street that day. It’s a gift to pray for Life and lay your hands on the shoulders of the person you’re praying for. It’s an intercessors dream come true.

I asked permission to place my hands on his shoulders and without knowing anything but his name and without him knowing anything about me but mine–Israel said it would be fine. I began asking God to show Israel the life that God had planned for him before the foundations of the earth. We prayed for Israel’s identity to be found and that Jesus would reveal Himself to Israel in a powerful way. We prayed for Israel’s gift of art, one of many gifts God placed inside of him. We prayed that the music Israel listened to when he draws would uplift, inspire and give life to him. And we thanked God for the perfect design of making Israel a man… that he was made a man on purpose, for a great purpose. That was the most powerful prayer of all.

My heart raced and tears plummeted as I echoed that prayer out of my mouth. Only to look up and see the man before me curled up with shoulders shaking and tears in his eyes, as well. When prayers like that hit that deep, it is important to repeat until you feel a peace. I kept speaking the beauty of Israel’s design. I kept thanking God for Israel being a man. It was one of the most strikingly simple and powerful prayers I’ve ever had the honor of praying.

When we finished praying, Israel thanked me. I asked if I could have his number not to bother him but text him so encouragement from time to time. Now, I don’t usually do this but again felt a peace in my request. He thankfully agreed and we exchanged phone numbers. And every once in a while for a year, when I thought of Israel, I said a prayer for him and sent him an encouragement. Mostly, I never got a response. But I think of Israel almost every time I go to that Planned Parenthood abortion center. God reminds me that my prayers of Life go beyond the womb, beyond the abortion clinic workers, beyond the moms and dads, and beyond government. My prayers of Life are for every human life,  in every situation, and in every battle.

That was two years ago this fall and while I was sitting on the couch a month ago, I received a text from my friend.

“Natalie? I don’t think you remember me but my name is Israel.”

He has no idea the impact his precious life has made on mine. But Israel told me how much praying together that day impacted his life.

“I’ll lead you to buried treasures, secret caches of valuables—confirmations that it is, in fact, I, God, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name. It’s because of my dear servant Jacob, Israel my chosen, That I’ve singled you out, called you by name, and given you this privileged work.”
      Isaiah 45:3-4 The Message

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

Reprinted with permission from Bound4Life.com


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook