Patrick Craine


Canada’s MPs have voted to perpetuate the dehumanizing of children

Patrick Craine
Patrick Craine

December 16, 2010 ( - Yesterday an overwhelming majority of Canada’s MPs, including our so-called Conservative Prime Minister, shockingly rejected Roxanne’s Law, which aimed to ban abortion coercion.

As many pro-lifers pointed out, the legislation was flawed.  It was too easily interpreted to state that abortion is a permissible option, which would make it, in fact, worse than the absence of law we have now.

But the law’s intent was good, and it deserved a chance to get tightened up in committee.  If an MP truly felt the bill as written was unsupportable, the best approach was to abstain or absent himself.

A vote against the bill at this stage, however, comes across as a decision to perpetuate Canada’s disastrous abortion regime.  This vote was a decision to continue a government system that dehumanizes all unborn children, and not merely those who are “unwanted.”

The abortion regimes set up in North America and Europe, and now sadly spreading throughout the world, are not just affecting those children in the womb who are murdered – even though they are obviously the greatest victims by far.  Every one of us is devalued, denied our dignity at our most vulnerable time of life.

I had direct experience with this dehumanizing system the other day.

“How many are in your household?” the woman from StatsCan asked me as part of a mandatory job survey.  “Four.  Me, my wife Jenna, my son Noah, and my wife is expecting.”

The woman was clearly confused.  “Um… you said four?”

“Yes, including the little one in Mommy’s womb.”

The woman quickly caught on to me, and it became clear that she was only marking down the eldest three of us.

This little exchange reminded me that my child has been denied his or her personhood, just like the Jews under Hitler.

This isn’t some kind of theoretical point.  My child has been dehumanized to the extent that if he or she were targeted for murder today, and my wife was beat up to that end, the harshest charge we could expect is assault for attacking my wife.

Just yesterday, a Canadian man was convicted for murdering his wife, who was 32 weeks pregnant.  The child also died after an emergency C-section.  Yet the man, named Turan Cocelli, faced no charge for the second murder, even though there were indications that his actions were motivated in part by the pregnancy.

In Canada, victimized children in the womb have no status before the law, even if the child is “wanted.” 

This was confirmed in yesterday’s vote.  Canada’s legislature chose to continue a government system that welcomes the murder of “wanted” children as much as the “unwanted.”

Pregnant women who want their babies are being pushed to abort under pain of losing shelter or financial support.  Roxanne Fernando, for whom the bill was named, lost her life because she wanted her baby.

Prime Minister Harper justified his vote against Roxanne’s Law by saying he would “oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”  He was joined by 177 other MPs from his caucus and the opposition.

It seems our legislature’s commitment to dehumanizing the child in the womb is so strong they will even oppose steps to protect these women.  So strong that they are unwilling to ensure even the “wanted” child is protected from government-funded slaughter.

Many claimed in the debates on Roxanne’s Law that the heinous act of abortion coercion is already covered under general bans on coercion in the Criminal Code.  Yet no one has ever been charged with coercing an abortion.

Roxanne Fernando chose to keep her baby.  She valued that child and wanted to give him a good life.  But even though abortion coercion was clearly at play in Roxanne’s case, that charge did not come up.  Whether covered by the Criminal Code or not, abortion coercion is not on our cultural radar.  Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper and the other MPs ensured that it will stay that way.

The lady from StatsCan later asked me about a trip we took last month to Windsor, Nova Scotia, about an hour away.

“How many household members traveled?”

“Four,” I said.

“Oh yes, including the unborn baby?”

“Yes, there were four of us.”  Again it was clear she was marking down three.

Even if the government and much of our culture refuse to recognize our children, we must never submit.  Standing firm in professing the indispensable and valued role of every child is the least we can do.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Share this article

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne


Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 ( -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day. also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins /
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 ( -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 ( – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook