By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, October 31, 2006 ( – An alarming poll in the largest circulation national daily paper, the Globe and Mail, asked if conjoined unborn baby twins should be permitted to be born. Astoundingly, 6,648 Canadians nearly 60% of respondents, answered in the negative.

The poll was asked in light of the birth of Krista and Tatiana Simms last Wednesday. Felicia Simms, 21, gave birth to the little girls by caesarian at 34 weeks gestation. Despite their being joined at the head, the twins were born healthy weighing 6.5 pounds each.

The Globe asked, “Conjoined B.C. twins Krista and Tatiana came into the world on Wednesday, joined at the head and possibly sharing parts of the same brain. Should fetuses entwined in such a manner be allowed to come to term?” Out of 11, 176 votes, 41% (4529) said yes, 59% said no.

Despite the family’s joy at the birth of the twins, some who claim to be ‘pro-choice’ have revealed their true pro-abortion stance by opining that the children should have been killed by abortion.Â

Margaret Wente, writing in the Globe and Mail today says: “This is not a story that should make anyone smile . . . Did anyone suggest to Ms. Simms that, for the sake of her family, proceeding with the pregnancy (she learned of the twins condition at 20 weeks) might not be such a hot idea?”

A Canadian Press story on the twins by Stephanie Levitz, run on CBC, was titled “From circus acts to girls-next-door: the changing reality of conjoined twins”. The lead read: “Yellowing flyers trumpet the heyday of conjoined twins as centre-stage attractions in travelling side shows and vaudeville revues. Billed as “spider-girls” or “two-headed-monsters,” conjoined twins of the 19th and early 20th centuries toured the globe as circus freaks.”

Writing in the University of Alberta student newspaper, the Gateway, Amanda Ash opines: “Having the technology at hand to assess complications ahead of time has the potential to rehash the abortion debate, but it also sheds some light on situations like the one in which Simms was placed. The fact of the matter is that Simms was given a choice; she had the freedom to make the ethical and personal decision of whether to have an abortion-and in my opinion, she made the wrong one.”

Ash continues, “It’s true that having an abortion could’ve created a lot of ill-feelings and guilt on Simms’ part as well, but chances are that the emotional effects of an abortion would-and will be-a lot less than what Simms and her children are going to go through.” (see the full column: )

An exclusive CTV interview with the Simms family shows that the family seems to be doing very well with their new additions, despite their handicap. On Friday, the report explains, Mrs. Simms was able to hold her twins for the first time, and told CTV that she loves her babies and sees her children when she looks at them. “I see two adorable little girls,” she said. “They’re not any different to me.”

As to the reaction of her two other children, Simms says they have only been able to watch their new sisters on television. Simms said of her eldest child, four-year-old Rosa, “From what I hear … she was hugging the TV and kissing them,” said Simms. (see the CTV coverage: )

True to form, pro-life activists have congratulated Mrs. Simms on her courage and defense of life and have pitched in to assist her with the care of her new arrivals. Members of the Kelowna Right to Life Society, a non-profit organizations that works to uphold the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have voted unanimously to donate $4,000.00 to Simms. The donation is meant to help pay for special equipment, such as custom car seats and the like, that BC medical does not cover.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.