Saturday, October 18, 2014

Uplifting


Pro-Life Student Saves Her Own Sibling, Her Mom Had Abortion Appointment The Next Day

by Leslie Palma 

Sometimes, the baby you save might be your own sibling.
Preparing for the 10th anniversary of the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity on Oct. 21, Priests for Life Youth Outreach Director Bryan Kemper received an email from a young woman who took part in the silent protest last year.
prolifestudents38“One young student e-mailed me about when she participated in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity for the first time, and was excited to get to school and be a voice,” Kemper said. “She walked downstairs with the LIFE tape on her mouth and her mother asked her what she was doing.

“She took off the tape to explain she was taking a stand for those being killed by abortion every day in this country. She was shocked when her mother started crying. Her mother then explained how she was pregnant and had an appointment for an abortion the next day. They talked for a while and her mother changed her mind and kept her baby.”

For the day, or even a portion of the day, student groups, individuals, businesses and ministries take a vow of silence, and pass out informational fliers to anyone who asks what they’re doing.
“Not everyone who pledges to give up their voice for a day in solidarity with the unborn will see such a tangible result as the girl who saved her own sibling from abortion, but we know that hearts and minds are changed and awareness is raised about the truth about abortion,” Kemper said. “And the truth is, we do hear from a fair number of participants that abortion-minded women and girls do approach them to ask for help. This is a very powerful thing that everyone can do.”
To find out more information, find resources on how to make the day a success and to register, go to www.SilentDay.org Kemper asks participants to spread word of the day on all their social media outlets.

Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, challenged people of all ages to get involved with the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity: “Are you willing to give up your voice for a day for those who will never have a voice,’” he asked. “Can you do it for the least of our brothers and sisters?”

Source: LifeSite News

Profond Loss/Abortion


 

Abortionists describes abortion of 13 week old unborn baby



By Sarah Terzo
12 weeks. A week younger than the baby being aborted
12 weeks. A week younger than the baby being aborted

In an article about abortionist Dr. William Harrison, the author [Stephanie Simon] describes an abortion:
An 18-year-old with braces on her teeth is on the operating table, her head on a plaid pillow, her feet up in stirrups, her arms strapped down at her sides. A pink blanket is draped over her stomach. She’s 13 weeks pregnant, at the very end of the first trimester. She hasn’t told her parents.

A nurse has already given her a local anesthetic, Valium and a drug to dilate her cervix; Harrison prepares to inject Versed, a sedative, in her intravenous line. The drug will wipe out her memory of everything that happens during the 20 minutes she’s in the operating room. It’s so effective that patients who return for a follow-up exam often don’t recognize Harrison.
3d sonogram at 13 weeks
3d sonogram at 13 weeks
The doctor is wearing a black turtleneck, brown slacks and tennis shoes. He snaps his gum as he checks the monitors displaying the patient’s pulse rate and oxygen count.
“This is not going to be nearly as hard as you anticipate,” he tells her.
She smiles wanly. Keeping up a constant patter – he asks about her brothers, her future birth control plans, whether she’s good at tongue twisters – Harrison pulls on sterile gloves.
“How’re you doing up there?” he asks.
“Doing OK.”
“Good girl.”
Harrison glances at an ultrasound screen frozen with an image of the fetus taken moments before. Against the fuzzy black-and-white screen, he sees the curve of a head, the bend of an elbow, the ball of a fist.
“You may feel some cramping while we suction everything out,” Harrison tells the patient.
13 weeks
13 weeks
A moment later, he says: “You’re going to hear a sucking sound.”
The abortion takes two minutes. The patient lies still and quiet, her eyes closed, a few tears rolling down her cheeks. The friend who has accompanied her stands at her side, mutely stroking her arm.
When he’s done, Harrison performs another ultrasound. The screen this time is blank but for the contours of the uterus. “We’ve gotten everything out of there,” he says.
Stephanie Simon “Offering Abortion, Rebirth” The Los Angeles Times 29 November 2005.

Editor’s note. This appeared at clinicquotes.com.

Source: NRLC News

Beautiful Story


 

Chloe: planting more positive seeds in 11 years than most human beings do in a lifetime



By Kurt Kondrich
Chloe_AlexreDuring the month of October we celebrate Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Since the birth of my beautiful daughter Chloe in 2003 I have become very aware of characteristics and behaviors these amazing individuals with an extra chromosome possess.

Shortly after Chloe’s birth and Down syndrome diagnosis we were told all the things Chloe could not do. After our family connected to awesome families and professionals in the field of Early Intervention we soon began to see all the incredible things Chloe could do. She has planted more positive seeds in 11 years than most human beings do in a lifetime.

When Chloe was born I was a city Police Officer. I had spent almost 20 years dealing with misguided people trying to hurt and deceive others in our lost culture of death. As I watched Chloe grow and spread her bright Light, I have often asked God what I did right to be blessed with such a pure child who will never intentionally hurt anyone and who is not capable of malice or evil.
During my career as a Police Officer I never recall an individual with Down syndrome being arrested or sought after for committing a crime. I have never seen a news story of a person with Down syndrome involved in a heinous act.

Chloe and individuals like her are filled with unconditional love, kindness, and empathy. I would go so far as to suggest that if the world were filled with people with an extra chromosome we would see a dramatic drop and probable ending to crime, hate, war, prejudice and violence.
I speak and present frequently to large groups of students, professionals, families and community members, and I tell them if I want to see someone who is disabled, broken and in need of intervention I just go to the mirror.
Chloe meets frequently with policymakers and leaders to show the abilities and purity of children with Down syndrome. She has shown countless people that all life is a priceless, precious gift to be embraced, protected and cherished.

I recently asked an elected official this question: “How do you know Chloe and individuals like her are not looking at the rest of us and thinking ‘What is wrong with these humans who are filled with anger, violence, hatred, depravity and despair and why can’t they fix themselves’?” Who are the truly defective, broken, disabled ones in our culture of death?

During Down Syndrome Awareness Month, please take time to connect with one of these very special, unique people.
Hebrews 13:2 “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”

Source: NRLC News

Really Cecile


 

Cecile Richards joins in to tout that abortion “wasn’t a difficult decision” for her



By Dave Andrusko
Cecile Richards
Cecile Richards

Imagine if you can, you’re part of the increasingly confident, increasingly zany wing of the Pro-Abortion Movement. These are the militants who really do believe that “telling your abortion story” will open the door to wider public acceptance just as saying “Open Sesame” opened the entrance to the cave filled with treasure.

No doubt they’d preferred Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards to have gone several steps further. But they’ll settle (for now) to have the President of PPFA give an interview to Elle magazine where she matter-of-factlysays having her abortion “wasn’t a difficult decision.”
Tara Culp-Ressler is one of those never-enough, never apologize (“Apologize? For what?”) scribes. Here’s the key paragraph from the Elle interview (published today) that Culp-Ressler understandably latches onto in her essay for ThinkProgress:
“I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me — and millions of other women around the country.”
Culp-Ressler’s next paragraph would be amusing (when it comes to the voluntary nature of the decision, she is so transparently insincere) if what it signaled wasn’t so sad:
“There’s been a move toward encouraging more women like Richards to speak up about the fact that they’ve had an abortion, a type of ‘coming out’ process that can help shift societal attitudes about the procedure. While advocates say that no one should be obligated to disclose their personal medical history, putting a personal face on the common reproductive health experience — one in three U.S. women will have an abortion before the age of 45 — can help influence the national conversation.”
Culp-Ressler and her ilk believe public sentiment will shift if enough women “out” themselves. Here are a couple of thoughts why this is such a profound misreading.
Pro-abortionists are puzzled that the same time the public as a whole, and particularly young people, have become more “liberal” on a panoply of issues, they (and especially young people) have not embraced the philosophy that equality for women requires lethal discrimination against unborn children.
But is it really so difficult to grasp why people balk at abortion? Not to anyone who has not drank the Kool Aid.
But that’s a rhetoric question, if you are talking about the absolutists like Culp-Ressler, indeed a stupid question that irritates them to no end.
To them abortion is not only no big deal. It is only any kind of a deal because (as Hanna Rosin told us in her review of Katha Pollitt’s new book) pro-lifers have “brainwashed” the public.
Obviously, this is the pot calling the kettle black. In the most unsubtle manner possible, they are trying to brainwash women into celebrating a decision that in many cases is eating away at their souls.
But that’s merely a means to an end for the Culp-Resslers. They want you and I and most everyone else who hurt for these women to take a pass on the decision to take these children’s lives.
In other words, if we feel for them for having made this dreadful decision (and we do), we are supposed to say, “okay, what you did was fine, even laudatory.”
No.
Culp-Ressler pretends they are not pressuring women to speak about their abortion. Of course they are.
But only a particular kind of woman, someone who (at least on the surface) has largely made peace with her decision. Not so for the women who recycle the horror of that moment over and over again. That doesn’t fit the approved narrative.
I have an acquaintance who is a friend of one of the many prominent pro-abortionists who insists her abortion registered so little on her moral Geiger Counter, she rarely ever thinks about it. But my acquaintance knows, I know, you know, and—at some level–the woman herself knows, this is a massive exercise in self-deception.
The bitter irony is the bolder they tout the insignificance of taking their child’s life, the louder the message the average America receives: these women do not think like me.

Source: NRLC News

Friday, October 17, 2014

Conscience Rights


 

Open letter to Justin Trudeau – honoring conscience rights



Editor’s note. Justin Trudeau us the head of the Liberal Party and the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. This “Open Letter” was originally sent to Mr. Trudeau by Patricia Maloney, a prominent blogger, and others displeased with Mr. Trudeau’s insistence that there is no room in the Liberal Party for pro-lifers. In an update today, Ms. Maloney says the letter now has over 100 signatures.
Dear Mr. Trudeau,
Justin Trudeau, leader of Liberal Party of Canada
Justin Trudeau, leader of Liberal Party of Canada

We the undersigned, are very concerned about your recent edict to exclude pro-life people from being candidates for the Liberal Party. We are also concerned that you say you are doing this, because you are a strong believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We must confess, we find it impossible to reconcile the two.
First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience (See section 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion). This is a fundamental right and the Charter is very clear in that it promises that all Canadians have this right. This would include all persons who wish to run for political parties. How can you in good conscience, exclude people because their consciences guide them differently, than yours does?
Second, when some honourable ex-Liberal MPs wrote you, you dismissed their concerns because you felt the writers were “old men.” This dismissal is also against the Charter, since your comments are both ageist and sexist, and so discriminatory based on same. (“See section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability).
Would you likewise discriminate against a young female’s opinion? Or conversely, perhaps you are implying that you would only listen to a young female’s opinion? In either case, this would still be discrimination based on age and gender.

If you do not agree with these men’s arguments, I would love to hear what your counter arguments would be. Instead you chose to ignore their arguments, preferring to attack the speakers instead of the subject at hand. This is not helpful in furthering honest and intelligent discussions on any issue including abortion.

Finally, on many occasions you have stated that a woman’s right to choose is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is not the case at all. The Supreme Court Justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision never stated that a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. How can you believe then, that her right to abortion is guaranteed by the Charter? It isn’t. Please see here for a detailed discussion what is in that decision, as well as what isn’t.
We must admit we are very confused by your understanding of the Charter. On the one hand, you ignore what is clearly guaranteed in the Charter, and on the other hand, you invent something that is clearly not in the Charter and say that it is. With all due respect Mr. Trudeau, your sentiments are logically incoherent.

We respectfully request that you welcome all persons into the Liberal Party regardless of their beliefs about abortion and that you respect their right to vote in accordance with their conscience.
We believe all persons deserve the same respect regardless of conscience beliefs, of gender, or of age.
Let the people decide if they wish to vote for these differing viewpoints. That is why we hold elections. It really isn’t for the leader to decide this. We believe this is what democracy is all about.
We respectfully request that you respond to this letter, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Source: NRLC News

Heart Breaking


 

Doula Struggles with Saying 11-Year-Old’s Abortion, Sex-Selection Abortion Are Wrong



By Micaiah Bilger, Education Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
love-them-both-300x211I read a lot of terrible abortion stories for my job, but some break my heart more than others.
A few weeks ago, I came across a column in the New York Magazine written by an abortion doula. Curious, I clicked on the story and read about the young woman, who provides emotional support for women as they have abortions.
I began to feel more and more horrified as I read about her work and her attempts to justify really terrible things. She writes:
“A year ago, when I was just starting out, Mitchell met with me and the other trainees to talk about the job. We sat in the park, eating pie. She gave us a sheet with situations so exaggeratedly horrible they seemed unreal: An 11-year-old in for an abortion who asks for birth control when she’s alone with the doctor. Her mother works nights; she’d been left with a friend who has a twentysomething son. She calls him her boyfriend; he will go to jail. A woman who says she’d like to do another ultrasound to see if it’s definitely a girl, because she’ll only keep it if it isn’t. …
“’What do you assume?’ Mitchell asked of each case. ‘How can you be supportive?’ We talked about what would be hard for us to overcome, things we might say or do and how we might feel. I felt embarrassed by my assumptions, and the limits of my compassion. I judged these women on the worthiness of their reasons (‘Would she really only keep a boy?’ I wondered) and found myself questioning why those who come in for late-term abortions had waited so long to decide. Later, I learned from Mahoney that all the examples were real cases that had come from her first six months working as an abortion doula.”

(You can read the full article here. Parts of it are graphic.)
I hung my head in anger and shame as I read about this young woman from my own generation, a young woman so caught up in the net of moral relativism that she believes it is compassionate to dismiss the rape of an 11-year-old or condone the woman who is aborting her baby simply because she’s a girl.

My generation places high moral value on the idea of acceptance and non-judgment. I think it comes from college, where we’ve been taught moral relativism – your morals aren’t better than mine, and mine aren’t better than yours. We have no right to judge someone else’s actions or beliefs. There is no right or wrong.
Acceptance, inclusiveness, a judgment-free attitude – these are all good things. But when these concepts are taken to the extreme of moral relativism, they become dangerous, and this article is a perfect example of it. Acceptance and non-judgment are no excuse for ignoring things that are truly terrible.

Sometimes people are wrong. Rape is wrong. Taking advantage of a child is wrong. Sex trafficking is wrong. Ignoring the victim of a crime is wrong. Killing an innocent person is wrong.
I could feel the columnist struggling with right and wrong throughout her column. Some situations seemed wrong to her, and rightly so. Yet, moral relativism won the hour.
Let’s not let it win the day. Abortion is wrong. We must never shy away from saying it – though we also must be compassionate when we do. Contrary to what moral relativists would have us believe, realizing that something is wrong opens the doors for us to extend a hand of compassion and love to those who are hurting.
And that is true compassion.

Editor’s note. This appeared at paprolife.us

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide


 

Joni Eareckson Tada to Brittany Maynard: doctor-assisted suicide is neither highly personal nor private



By Dave Andrusko
Joni Eareckson Tada
Joni Eareckson Tada
There are motivational speakers, and motivational speakers, and then there is Joni Eareckson Tada. Although it’s now 14 years, I remember like it was yesterday watching Joni speak to the 2000 convention in Crystal City, Virginia.
Few people then or now can talk as Joni can about finding meaning even in the darkest times; about not succumbing when circumstances and, perhaps, many around you “understand” how giving up (suicide) an “understandable response.” is
For those who may not know Joni’s story, in 1967 she was severely injured in a diving accident. She has lived—thrived– all these years as a quadriplegic.
But those two sentences don’t begin to tell you what she’s been through. Joni is a remarkable woman, a disability rights activist whose ministry “Joni and Friends” has an inspiration to millions for decades.
That’s why when Joni wrote to Brittany Maynard, in the form of an essay for Religious News Service, I paid attention.
As most of you know, Maynard announced that she will be “assisted” to die November 1. She is simultaneously adamant that she is not committing suicide.
As the Orange County Register put it so reassuringly, “She’ll be with her husband, mother, stepfather and best friends. At some point, she will drink a cup of water infused with a physician-prescribed drug and drift into a deep sleep from which she does not plan to wake.”
It comes as absolutely no surprise that Compassion & Choices (in a previous life the Hemlock Society) has latched on to beautiful young woman diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain tumor and given only a few months to live.
The 29-year-old has already become the lovely “face” of the pro-assisted suicide movement, including on the cover of People Magazine. Maynard told the magazine that there is a six-minute online video that includes interviews with Brittany her mother, Debbie Ziegler, and Dan Diaz, her husband.
“In mid-October, Maynard will videotape testimony to be played for California lawmakers and voters at the appropriate time,” Nicole Weisensee Egan wrote.
There have been many eloquent, passionate, heart-felt pleas to Ms. Maynard to reconsider. Many, including us, have also tried to impress the wider implications of a glamorized “end” when suicide is already the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.
Writes San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders
Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund in Berkeley is concerned that Maynard’s story obscures the larger picture. “For every individual with a happy family who’s not at risk for abuse, there are many other individuals who may be subtly steered toward assisted suicide by their insurance company or pressured by their family.” For every Brittany Maynard, there are others who face serious illnesses — aging, maybe — without Maynard’s extraordinary support system. Golden worries lest “profit-driven managed health care” subtly steer the sick in the direction of — what’s the word? — dignity.
Asks palliative care specialist Dr. B.J. Miller, will there still be a place for “people who are sick and beyond their utilitarian function” in this new world of choice?
In reprinting Joni’s column, the Washington Post headlined it, “Why Brittany Maynard’s choice to die is not personal or private.” Joni writes
Brittany may think her choice is a highly personal and private one, but it is not. Already, her decision has reignited hotly contested debates as to whether physician-assisted suicide should be expanded beyond the five states where it is legal. Proponents of Brittany’s decision are already using her story as a bully pulpit to advance their so-called death-with-dignity agendas.
But Joni is a devout Christian, so her plea to Brittany also includes her relationship to God
“The journey Brittany — for that matter, all of us — will undertake on the other side of death is the most important venture on which we will ever embark. So it must not be disregarded or brushed aside without thinking twice about the God who alone has the right to decide when life should begin and end. …
“If I could spend a few moments with Brittany before she swallows that prescription she has already filled, I would tell her how I have felt the love of Jesus strengthen and comfort me through my own cancer, chronic pain and quadriplegia.”
Joni returns repeatedly to the disintegrative impact of doctor-assisted suicide, best caught in this paragraph:
“This is no way to strengthen care and nurturing in society; rather, such a decision further unravels the cords of compassion that have characterized our nation for so many decades. A right to privacy is radicalized by physician-assisted suicide — it does not strengthen the common good, but only alienates, separates and dismantles us as a people who truly care for one another.”
Nobody, certainly not Joni nor I, would ever minimize the gravity of Ms. Maynard’s medical condition. We would hope, nonetheless, that she would reconsider her decision to make an already terrible tragedy many times worse.

Source: NRLC News

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Genetic Testing


 

Genetic counselors and sex selection abortions



By Sarah Terzo
genetic4Rayna Rapp interviewed counselors at genetic clinics where women came to have their babies tested for disabilities including Down syndrome. The counselors then discussed with the women whether or not they would have abortions. Many of the women who came in aborted when they found out that their babies would have a genetic disease or handicap. Some, however, had the tests not to determine whether the baby would be disabled, but to determine whether or not the baby was of the desired sex. According to Rapp:

“Along the same lines, every counselor deplored abortion of a healthy fetus for reasons of sex selection, but all could tell the stories of the once or twice in their careers when someone had chosen termination because their healthy fetus was the “wrong sex.” And usually, the wrong sex was the female sex. Such fetal “feticide” makes feminist theorists and activists justifiably very angry and pessimistic. Counselors are very troubled by their collusion with such drastic actions, but also express the discipline imposed by their nondirective stance. After all, most reason, a “woman’s right to choose” extends to deciding to abort for whatever cause she finds meaningful, and this one denotes profound problems in her life should she produce an extra daughter instead of a much desired son. Counselors perceive this problem to be particularly burdensome for Chinese and Indian women, who come from groups in which sons are more highly valued. In these communities, there have been public discussions of the uses of sex selection to produce them… Despite their own ethical beliefs, most counselors provide counseling services even when they know that a diagnosis is being sought for sex selection reasons.”

Rayna Rapp “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America “(New York: Routledge, 1999) 94
Note: the baby below was 16 weeks along. At the time this book was written, and ultrasound could only detect the sex of the baby at 18 to 20 weeks. All of these abortions that were done to kill female babies were done late-term.

Source: NRLC News

Premature Babies


 

Another baby survives near “cut-off” point in Great Britain, mother calls on government to revisit “guidelines” for non-treatment of babies born before 24 weeks gestation



By Dave Andrusko
Miracle baby: Rachel Crockett with son Connor Walkow
Miracle baby: Rachel Crockett with son Connor Walkow
The latest in a string of stories about premature babies surviving in Great Britain continues to challenge the “guidance” by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine that it is “in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out” if the baby is under 24 weeks.
A little over a year ago Rachel Crockett’s water broke while she was in a McDonald’s. She told the Leighton Buzzard Observer that at that point
“I was 23 weeks and two days pregnant, which is just short of the 24-week cut off point.
“It was a real panic for us, we didn’t know what to do at all. We were told that they [doctors at Milton Keynes Hospital] said they couldn’t do anything for us but Craig and I pushed them to ring other hospitals.”
Given that the baby was less than 24 weeks gestation, Crockett believed, “After talking it through with them I thought that was it, the baby we wanted we would not be able to get.”
But for whatever reason—perhaps the persuasiveness of Crockett and Craig Walkow or perhaps (as the story indicates elsewhere) because they demanded that Connor Walkow be treated–“We were so relieved when John Radcliffe Hospital said they would take us, though they could not promise they would be able to help.”
Connor Walkow tipped the scales at just 1lb 2oz when he was delivered October 3, 2013.
Connor was placed a polythene sleeping bag to mimic being in the womb, according to the Mirror.
“The freezer bag was used to replicate the warmth of Connor’s mum’s womb, as premature babies are susceptible to hypothermia.
“The bag comes up to the baby’s neck and feeding and oxygen tubes are also used to keep the baby alive.
“It is used in premature babies because they are too tiny and their skin is too thin for an incubator to provide the environment they need.”
Subsequently, Connor began an arduous seven-month stint in the hospital where he was treated for a series of major medical problems.
Eventually he came home to celebrate his first birthday with family.
“His birthday crept up very quickly and we had such a busy weekend, there were so many presents and people,” said Crockett. “We’re waiting to see what his development is like but at the moment he is just like an eight-month-old baby. He is not mobile yet but he rolls and loves his toys.”
Her experience has prompted Crockett to call on the government and the National Health Service to reexamine procedures surrounding the births of premature babies and roll the cutoff point back to 20 weeks. She told the Mirror
“We were told to say goodbye to Connor and that we wouldn’t see him again. It felt like the end of the world, we were numb.
“We just had to sit there and wait for the nurse to say the worst, there was such relief when they told us he was OK.
“Later on the consultant came by and looked in on him – he could not believe Connor looked so well.”
Crockett also told the Leighton Buzzard Observer
“I think the cutoff point and abortion limit should be lowered, considering what happened with Connor. With him they said that as my waters had broken and he didn’t come out then he shouldn’t have had a heartbeat, but he did.
“Without the transfer to John Radcliffe, Connor would not be here right now, at that age I believe they should be helped.

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide


 

The Supreme Court of Canada must uphold legal protections against euthanasia and assisted suicide for every Canadian



Editor’s note. This alert is provided by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
SCofCanada5Today the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing a case concerning Canada’s laws related to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Many Canadians are concerned about whether the laws designed to protect their lives will be upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) has intervened in this case at every level.
EPC legal counsel Hugh Scher states:
“EPC is concerned about the safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors, which is central to the protections set out under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Criminal Code.”

EPC-BC chair Dr. Will Johnston states:
“The Supreme Court will consider this important public safety issue. The Court rejected assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1993 and prevented Canada from taking a wrong turn. In the 20 years since, human nature has not changed, our poor record of predicting the dying process has not changed, and vulnerable people are still at risk in our health care system. We are getting better at controlling symptoms, and we have seen the abuses of euthanasia in those few jurisdictions where this practice has become entrenched.
“Let us hope that by clarifying the issues, the Supreme Court once again confirms the Canadian rejection of suicide and direct killing of the sick, and that we stay the course by improving symptom control to all who need it.”

EPC Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg stated:

“The Supreme Court needs examine how decriminalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will affect every Canadian.
“In other jurisdictions, euthanasia has expanded to include people with depression, people with psychiatric problems, people with dementia, teenagers and other incompetent people.
“The laws in other jurisdictions have also been abused.
“Canadian society needs to focus on how it cares for people in difficult circumstances, not how it could kill these people.”

This appeared at alexschadenberg.blogspot.com.

Source: NRLC News