Canada
On May 9, the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) issued a paper calling for “Universal access to no-cost contraception for youth in Canada.” Claiming “access to contraception” is a “basic human right,” the CPS pointed to estimates that there are nearly 60,000 unintended pregnancies among women 25 and under in Canada and claimed that preventing those pregnancies would save money even after accounting for the $157 million price-tag of universal contraception for kids. CPS said that there would be $320 million in direct medical savings from fewer abortions and live deliveries to teens and young adults. (The paper also confuses unintended with unwanted and assumes that teens will use contraception effectively.) CPS said studies show that a quarter of those under 20 and about 32 per cent of those between 20 and 25 do not always use contraception despite being sexually active. CPS said cost is the biggest barrier to using contraception regularly, but also said that “dependent youth who wish to access contraception confidentially face an additional barrier” because insurance companies often report usage to policy holders (the parents). CPS called for provincial and federal health plans to cover 100 per cent of the cost of contraception, including condoms, IUDs, birth control pills, and long-term (five-year) contraceptive implants, and to mandate that private health insurance cover such products – and that insurance companies hide purchases of contraception from parents. It also said health ministries should provide no-cost contraceptives to community-based programs for youth. CBC commentator Tasha Kheiriddin objected to the proposal not on moral grounds but folksy common sense, noting that the Canadian Pediatric Society should not be advocating for young adults and sardonically observing that if an older teenager or someone in their 20s is mature enough to have sex, they should be able to obtain their own contraception. Anthony Furey, a Toronto Suncolumnist who was on the same panel, said it is hard to imagine youth do not have access to some form of contraception because there is already a patchwork of government programs through public health, schools, and youth and community programs that provide contraception to teens.
An Ontario private members Bill 84—Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act 2019—has passed second reading and is now before the Ontario Standing Committee on Justice Policy. Why should this bill concern us? First of all, the bill does not define the word “hate.” As we pro-lifers are well aware, our compassionate and just treatment of pregnant women and their unborn babies is viewed by some in society as actions “hateful” toward women. Or, as was written in the May 2019 issue of The Interim, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Bill Whatcott, a Christian, was guilty of a “hate” crime for writing and distributing a brochure on the evils of homosexuality. So, if a person or group were to espouse certain moral views as part of demonstrating at Queen’s Park, the Speaker of the House, an elected politician, could deem it “hateful,” and charges could be brought. Remember, the word “hate” is not described in the bill, so it is anything the Speaker wants it to be. Do we want an elected official whose job it is to keep decorum in the legislature, to be making rules on rallies taking place on the legislature grounds outside? And, what about freedom of expression which is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Ontario government needs to take a closer look at the proposed legislation and consign it to the dustbin.
Former Liberal MP and Chretien-era cabinet minister Sheila Copps used her May 6 Hill Timescolumn to for an end to the National Prayer Breakfast on Parliament Hill. Copps acknowledged that “many Members of Parliament attend the annual National Prayer Breakfast, sharing a common desire to include spirituality in public decision-making.” The tradition began in the 1960s and it has been a non-partisan affair. Copps questioned whether “the Speaker’s Office (should) be sponsoring a religious summit that is exclusionary in nature?” She also charged it with becoming more political in its overtones without offering any evidence. Well, she offered flimsy evidence. Recent speakers at the breakfast include representatives of the Christian charity Samaritan’s Purse and the evangelical Zacharais Institute that produces Christian apologetics. She does not report what those speakers said at the breakfast, but she does imply they were beyond the pale because Samaritan’s Purse is Franklin Graham’s international aid organization. Copps notes that Graham is an evangelical supporter of Donald Trump who has called for banning Muslim immigration in America, implying that the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast is anti-immigrant and anti-Islam.
United States
President Donald Trump has promised to promote and protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious liberty. During remarks marking the 2019 U.S. National Day of Prayer on May 2, he kept his promise, announcing legislation to protect the rights of Americans with respect to freedom of religion, in his words, to “live according to the teachings of their faith and the convictions of their heart.” This administrative document is the final part of a “conscience rule to protect those who work under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) program,” including physicians, pharmacists, nurses, teachers, students, and faith-based charities. This package of rules will “protect providers, individuals and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.” The director of the Office of Civil Rights, Roger Severino, underscored that “health care workers won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life. These laws …will be enforced like every other civil right law.”
In 2001, economists John J. Donohue and Steve D. Levitt (the latter of Freakonomics fame), published a study that purported to show the legalization of abortion in the 1970s led to the drop in crime in America in the 1990s. It predicted further reductions in crime in the coming years. Looking back at their prediction, Donohue and Levitt’s new paper, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades,” found “strong support for the prediction” that there would be “persistent declines of 1 per cent a year in crime.” Indeed, they found that between 1997 and 2014, crime fell about 20 per cent “due to legalized abortion.” The obvious insinuation is that the prenatal killing of blacks and those in poverty is a good thing because they are the populations more likely to commit crimes and they are the ones more likely to have abortions. Researcher Steve Sailer has debunked Dononhue’s and Levitt’s original research, noting that it is not possible to separate the availability of legal abortion from other factors influencing crime rates and remind readers that a statistical correlation is not causation. Sailer has yet to publish a response to the new paper.
On page two we write about pro-life laws being passed south of the border, including the contentious debate about Alabama’s pro-life law that has an exception only to save the mother’s life. It is noted in our report but worth repeating here that during the debate in the lower house, state representative John Rogers said: “Some kids are unwanted … You bring them into the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or kill them later.” That’s Donohue and Levitt’s work in action and it’s ugly when stated so bluntly and not behind academic economics. Responding to Rogers, Donald Trump Jr., the President’s son, tweeted that he found the remarks “stomach curdling.” Rogers shot back that Trump Jr.’s tweet, “is proof that mothers ought to have the right to an abortion.”
Senator Cory Cooker (NJ) is one of 24 candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination. To solidify his pro-abortion bona fides among the crowded field in which every candidate pledges allegiance to the full NARAL Pro-Choice America agenda, Booker vowed to create a “White House Office of Reproductive Freedom.” In other words, an abortion czar. Booker’s plan says the new office would coordinate with officials from multiple agencies to ensure they are fulfilling the president’s reproductive health priorities, and would cover issues such as abortion, contraception, paid family leave, and pregnancy care.” But we’ve repeatedly seen that reproductive rights, while technically covering a wide variety of issues, is ultimately reduced to promoting abortion. Indeed, a statement released by Booker’s campaign admits as much. Booker noted that various “Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are mounting a coordinated attack on abortion and reproductive rights,” and concluded, “a coordinated attack requires a coordinated response.” He, like most other candidates running for the Democratic nomination, also vowed to “codify Roe v. Wadeinto federal law.”
A large pro-life rally, sponsored by Focus on the Family, was held in New York City’s Times Square on May 4, as “an affirmation of the dignity of unborn life” following the state legislature permitting abortion up to the moment of birth, and even beyond. Originally, the rally organizers were going to rent the Times Square Jumbotrons but eventually they had to use their own giant screens that they positioned around the Square. Abby Johnson, then 8-months’ pregnant, stepped behind the stage and entered a mobile medical unit, where a technician transmitted a 4-D ultrasound of her baby on to the screens. Here is part of broadcaster Kevin McCullough’s unforgettable description: “For the first time in all my years of Times Square, I will never forget that moment. In the middle of literally the world’s busiest intersection (between 10,000 and 20,000 people watching), a quiet fell across multiple blocks that was so deafening you could literally have heard a pin drop. No angry chants in protest. No applause of agreement. Just a sleepy little baby’s face, in beautiful 4D, staring out across New York City’s busiest neighbourhoods.” Johnson then appeared on stage and announced that “life is winning.”
Planned Parenthood is branching out. Never one to miss the opportunity to wreak havoc in people’s lives and make lots of money in the process, PP is now offering hormone therapy to those wanting to “transgender.” Ever the willing enabler, PP “believes everyone deserves compassionate health care – no matter your gender identity or sexual orientation.” The PP-affiliate service is presently available in California, Florida, New York, and Virginia. This is also evidence not only of opportunism but the connectedness of the abortion and LGBQT+ agenda.
Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington, is running for the Democratic presidential nomination on a radical environmentalist agenda. He also recently signed into law the “Concerning Human Remains Act” that allows “liquid cremation,” a euphemism for turning human beings into compost. The law, which will allow the “organic reduction” of the deceased, was promoted by environmentalists who oppose burying the dead, a process that involves chemicals and coffins that do not decompose. State senator Jamie Pederson, who sponsored the bill, said the burial business imposes “serious weight on the earth and the environment on your final farewell.” Beginning May 1, 2020, deceased loved ones can be placed in an environmentally friendly container with straw and wood chips for four weeks while it decomposes. The new soil will be given to family or friends who can spread the human compost wherever they want.
International
On May 24, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex “marriage.” In May 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that homosexuals were denied equal rights by the country’s definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Executive Yuan (the government) introduced a bill that extended all the rights of married couples under the Civil Code, except adoption of non-genetically related children, to same-sex couples. The bill was fast-tracked and passed in a week.
