Peter Baklinski

Stop legalization of ‘suicide and murder’: Concerned Quebecers to protest government euthanasia

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

QUEBEC CITY, February 20, 2013, ( – Their rallying cry is urgent and grave: “Euthanasia is at our doors. It's time to ring the alarm!”

The Quebec Life Coalition (CQV) is calling upon all citizens who value human life to demonstrate against the province’s upcoming legislation that would bring in euthanasia through the back door.

Pundits suspect that the Quebec government will legislate by the end of June to allow euthanasia. The law, to be based on Quebec’s Select Committee “Dying With Dignity Report” that dresses up euthanasia as “medical aid in dying,” will apply to Quebecers over the age of 18, who make the request and who have a “serious, incurable disease,” or who are in an “advanced state of weakening capacities, with no chance of improvement,” or who have “constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased under conditions he or she deems tolerable.”

A demonstration is planned for March 9 in front of the legislature in Quebec City.

“We know that we can't stop the inevitable decline of the Western culture, but those of us who are involved in this protest want to have a clear conscience. We want to be able to say that we didn't stand by idly while the State encourages suicide and legalizes murder,” wrote Daniel Arseneault, a member of CQV, in an e-mail to

Arseneault said that many people in Quebec think that euthanasia, an act to deliberately cause someone’s death, is a settled matter since opponents to the proposed legislation have not been able to make their voices heard in the media.

“There is a false notion that there exists a consensus on euthanasia in Quebec, especially following the sham ‘Commission on Dying with Dignity,’ which was nothing more than a public relations endeavor to convince Quebecers that everyone is in favour of euthanasia,” he said.

Arseneault said that a “substantial minority” of Quebecers — between 21 percent and 45 percent — are in fact opposed to euthanasia but that the “political and intellectual establishment would have us think otherwise in order to stifle debate on this issue.”

Georges Buscemi, president of the Quebec Life Coalition, pointed out that legalizing murder under the name of euthanasia is a slippery slope that can only lead to abuse.

“The PQ government is trying to reassure us that the new law will have ‘safeguards’ or ‘strict guidelines’ to ensure that no abuse takes place. But who do they take us for? Don't people ever learn from history?”

Buscemi pointed out that abortion was only decriminalized in 1969 with the promise of strict safeguards and guidelines that would be put in place and enforced.

“To abort [at that time], one needed the approval of a committee of three doctors. It had to be for ‘good medical reasons’. Some, no doubt, predicted that there would be at most a few hundred yearly abortions in Quebec,” he said. “But that number grew and grew until 1988, when, with the Supreme Court Morgentaler decision, all those beautiful ‘guidelines’ and ‘safeguards’ collapsed, leaving a legal vacuum.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“Today we're dealing with 30,000 abortions per year in Quebec [and] 100,000 in Canada,” he said. “We have abortion on demand, for any reason, [up] until the [time of] birth. That's what happened in the span of 40 years.”

“I do not see how euthanasia will be different: in a few years, what has happened with abortion will happen for euthanasia — euthanasia on demand for any or no reason — unless we do something about it now,” he said.

Karl Gunning, former head of the Dutch Doctors’ Union, stated in a 1994 speech that “Once you start looking at killing as a means to solve problems, then you’ll find more and more problems where killing can be the solution.”

Arseneault pointed out that if murder became law, the government would be sure to take advantage of the situation.

“There is also the ever-present risk of abuse on the part of the State who is in conflict of interest, since costs of caring for the mentally and physically ill are exploding,” he said.

The Quebec Life Coalition is also sounding the alarm that the government of Quebec is usurping a federal prerogative, since Canadian criminal law prohibits euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told in a recent interview that the Committee’s proposal for getting around current Federal law was to redefine euthanasia as a “medical treatment.” Euthanasia as a “medical treatment” would then fall under the jurisdiction of provincial health care laws.

“Because they can’t change the criminal law, they’re going to call euthanasia a ‘medical treatment’ and say it’s legal because it’s a ‘treatment.’ They’re changing the meaning of words to get a way with homicide,” he said.

The Quebec Life Coalition has slammed the approach as “undemocratic and unconstitutional.”

Top American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith has criticized Quebec’s push to legalize euthanasia, saying it will turn doctors into killers and establish broad “categories of the killable” that will apply to practically anyone seeking death for any reason.

Smith pointed out that the phrase “aid in dying” in the proposed legislation is simply a euphemism for “active killing by doctors.” He suggested that if the Committee’s recommendations are followed, then “every Quebec physician will be conscripted to participate in homicide as a condition of practicing medicine.”

The Quebec Life Coalition is asking people of faith to pray that “God will heal the spiritual blindness of too many of our fellow citizens which leads them to believe that killing is an act of compassion and suicide a worthy and beneficial gesture.”

The organization is also asking people to sign the Total Refusal of Euthanasia Declaration crafted by an alliance of Quebec physicians who oppose legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

“With your support, we will be able to tell the truth about the dangers of euthanasia in Quebec,” states the Quebec Life Coalition.

The protest against legalizing euthanasia in Quebec will take place on March 9, 2013, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in front of the legislature in Quebec City. Details can be found at CQV’s website. 

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook