Index of News Items Voting
Tips Included - News to resume in July.
TOP
Pre-election Involvement
Please participate in this Federal election and do more than ever before,
this election will be defining factor for pro-life and pro-family issues and
the very foundation of our Country. For as the family is attacked and falters
so will Canada as the strength and moral integrity of families define the nation.
. Already we are hearing of a population demise in Canada, and so too here in
Nova Scotia. All our concerns about medical care will be for naught without
a stabilized population base which will come from stable families that are encourage
to provide safe haven for children.
Help a pro-family, pro-life candidate to get elected, contribute time
and money, if possible to their campaign. Write letters to the newspapers prior
to and during the election on the issues of family and life. Check your MPs
voting record on issues that came before the house by clicking on the menu above
on this page. CLC has begun polling candidates for your consideration. The results
will be posted as soon as possible. You can help us by reporting to clcns@clcns.com
with comments by candidates or results of your calls or visits to candidates.
Robert Thibault, Lib- West Nova
Robert Cuzner, Lib-
Bras d'or
Geoff Regan, Lib- Halifax West
Voted against
the traditional definition of marriage and voted against
Bill M83 a pro-life initiative in parliament.
For more information consult our voters guide at www.clcns.com/ridings.htm
and www.lifesite.net. All three candidates along
with the NDP members support abortion from conception until birth is complete
by definition of law. (Cutting of umbilical cord)
You have possibly heard the term 'judicial activism',
this means the courts are making the laws and not our MPs. The Liberals are
fueling the courts and encouraging them to be active, by using the courts, not
as a matter of a proper legal process, but as a political tool in their efforts
to revolutionize society. i.e. gag law legislation, same-sex marriages, criminalizing
speech about homosexuality, just to name a few.
CLC Canada has formed a top-notched election team with many years of
experience both on the campaign trail and in the so called corridors of power.
It is extremely important to remember that an election once called is only [6]
six weeks away from that date. Check with www.lifesite.net
for information on the election. You can call our National office at 1 800 730
5358 and speak to Gillian or Cyril about your candidate to help in the assessment.
We are reminded that social concerned citizens who value family and
life can make a difference. i.e., Paul Szabo a veteran MP in Mississauga south
was challenged by a candidate put forth by Anne MacLellan who did not seem to
be a strong pro-life or pro-family candidate. Paul on the other hand has been
a cross bearer for life and family in parliament. CLC along with others organized
supporters and won the day with 130 votes. So it does and can happen that pro-life
people can make a difference. It happens in all elections, but with Paul it
was most noticeable since a veteran was being challenged and he won the day
with pro-life, pro-family supporters who went the extra mile.
TOP
Moral Obligations of Voters and Politicians
Statements by religious leaders
PROTESTANT
“I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one
innocent baby… Some would ask, ‘Shouldn't we vote for the lesser of two evils
when the choice is between pro-abortion candidates?’ I believe not. To compromise
on so fundamental an issue gives [pro-life politicians/parties] no incentive
to defend the pro-life position”. (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family March,
1995)
“…would you vote for a candidate who would support the killing of 5-year-old
boys and girls whose parents no longer wanted them? Would it matter whether
or not you agreed with that politician on economic matters or other issues?
Would you get under a ‘big tent’ with a party that had this one teeny weeny
flaw which they might call ‘pro-choice on child eradication’ within its platform?
I pray not.” (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family)
Abortion “is such a fundamental wrong, that when it comes to voting, a candidate's
stance on the issues is irrelevant if he or she favours abortion,” since “the
voter participates in promoting the agenda of the candidate in an intentional
action.” “You shall not murder … Therefore … a Christian cannot debate the pros
and cons of abortion any more than he can debate the pros and cons of rape or
stealing or adultery.“ (Rev. Dr. James I. Lamb, Executive Director of Lutherans
for Life, from a pamphlet written prior to the 2000 U.S. Election)
CANADIAN BISHOPS
CALGARY, Feb. 28, 2001 (LSN.ca) - On a Calgary radio show Bishop Fred Henry
spoke about the “scandalous behaviour” of Roman Catholic Progressive Conservative
Leader Joe Clark who declares himself “pro-choice” while calling himself Catholic.
The Bishop stated “Practically speaking, this may mean that Joe Clark is not
going to be a welcomed personage to speak in Catholic schools in this diocese.
And it may well be that should Joe Clark predecease me, he may not have the
bishop burying him from the cathedral.”
The Bishop compared the common political line, “I'm personally opposed to abortion,
but I cannot force my morality on others” to someone being “personally opposed
to child abuse” but unwilling to defend them. “We do it (impose morality) all
the time; it's a matter of what morality we're going to impose,” Henry said.
“If one happens to be a Catholic, there cannot be a split between one's internal
kind of views and thoughts. . . and what one says publicly”.
CALGARY, Feb 26, 2001 (LSN.ca) - Alberta's Catholic Bishop Fred Henry in a
column published today in the Calgary Sun chastised Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
and Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark for their “pro-choice” stance
on abortion. Bishop Henry noted, “no Catholic can responsibly take a ‘pro-choice’
stand when the ‘choice’ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.”
Citing Pope John Paul II, he wrote that civil leaders have a duty “to make courageous
choices in support of life, especially through legislative measures. No one
can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative
or decision-making mandate which calls that person to answer to God, to his
or her own conscience and to the whole of society for choices which may be contrary
to the common good.” (Evangelicum Vitae 90).
OTTAWA, Jan 19, 2001 (LSN.ca) “Catholic politicians should be making their
private opinions public. Religion is not a private affair. It is a public issue.”
(Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen)
“I must remind you of your duty to uphold what is necessary for the common
good of the country. Those who defend abortions whether legalized or not, or
who refuse to make a clear commitment to defend the rights of the unborn or
the aged and the ill, or who in other ways promote the corruption of family
life, disqualify themselves from public office, no matter what their other qualifications
may be. Conscientious citizens may not support such politicians any more than
they could support racists, hate peddlers, opponents of true social justice,
or anyone else who, in a similar manner, threatens the common good”. (Bishop
James Mahoney, Diocese of Saskatoon, Pastoral letter, march 19, 1977)
“First, we must vote for candidates and parties that uphold the right to life
for all Canadians and for all human beings everywhere. Second, we must vote
for candidates and parties who recognize that a family is ‘a man and a woman
united in marriage, together with their children’(12); who will enact policies
that recognize that children are the responsibility and duty first and foremost
of their parents and not of the state; and who will enact policies that assist
and do not hamper parents in raising their children.” A Canadian Catholic Voters
Catechism, Nov. 2000, Office of Life and Family of the Archdiocese of Vancouver
(Archbishop Adam Exner)
PRIESTS FOR LIFE
NEW YORK, July 24, 2000 (LSN.ca) Speaking about the necessity to vote pro-life
if you are Christian, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life
said “don't claim to be a believer if you don't act like one, and don't claim
to be a member of the Church and then misrepresent its teachings.” Moreover,
he warned politicians: “To supporters of abortion who profess Christianity,
of any denomination, we say stop being a scandal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
U.S. BISHOPS
ARLINGTON, VA, Jan 15, 2001 (LSN.ca)“What disturbs me, then, is the politician,
man or woman, who wants to have it both ways. They say, ‘I'm a Catholic,’ then
espouse all sorts of things that the Catholic Church says are wrong,” said Bishop
Thomas J. Welsh, the founding bishop of the Arlington Diocese in an interview
with the Arlington Catholic Herald. “If you say the Church is wrong about one
serious issue like the pro-life stance, then you're undermining the whole nature
of the Church. The Lord didn't say, ‘I'm with you all the time, except on some
major issues.’… The Church is supposed to be guiding people on a day-to-day
basis on how to get to heaven… We are saying this (abortion) is intrinsically
evil. There's no time for anybody at any place to have an abortion and say,
‘this is right.’ It's always, always wrong.”
DENVER, Colorado, Jan. 25, 2001 (LSN.ca) - Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
addressed participants at the Colorado Right to Life March and Rally, held last
Saturday on the west steps of Colorado's State Capitol Building, telling them
Catholics must vote pro-life. “We can't simultaneously commit ourselves to human
rights, while voting for people and policies that attack the weakest among us.
Nor can we practice a commitment to the sanctity of human life only as a private
piety. People of religious faith must live their pro-life witness courageously,
as a matter of public record and civic responsibility - or we'll lose it even
as a matter of private principle,” he said.
“I will give no support by word or action, that could in any way be construed
in favour of any politician, or any political party who professes either a pro-abortion
position or takes refuge in a so-called pro-choice position. I categorically
reject the evasion, I am personally opposed to abortion, but… ”(Cardinal John
O'Connor, Archdiocese of New York, 1984)
ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY, Oct 6, 2000 (LSN.ca) - Bishop James T. McHugh of Rockville
Centre, Long Island, NY has sent a letter to all the priests in his diocese
laying out a policy regarding pro-abortion politicians. In his Sept 21 letter,
obtained by LifeSite, the Bishop writes that “The policy… means that no pro-abortion
public official or candidate is to be invited to address Catholic agencies or
organizations, school or parish groups, even if he/she does not intend to express
their pro-abortion views.” The bishop explains, “The reason for this is that
it would be foolish and counterproductive to provide a platform to those who
favour or support a public policy of abortion on demand or of euthanasia or
assisted suicide. It would also be extremely misleading to provide such persons
a platform to promote their views, even on other issues, lest they claim that
the Church somehow implicitly tolerates their rejection of Church teaching on
pro-life issues.”
Catholic citizens especially should affirm a personal stance that respects
and sustains human life and makes it unmistakably clear to all candidates and
officials that this will be a determining factor in their choice of candidates.
— Bishop James T. McHugh, Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY (“Voting the Gospel
of Life,‘ Columbia Magazine, September 2000).
BOSTON, Oct 23, 2000 (LSN.ca) - The Bishops of the four Roman Catholic dioceses
in Massachusetts have issued an election statement calling on Catholics to exercise
their “moral obligation" to vote and to recognize the “absolute centrality"
of the protection of human life when choosing candidates on Election Day, Tuesday,
November 7. According to the Bishops' statement, Faithful Citizenship in Massachusetts:
"It is our responsibility to vote for candidates who will promote life
and the culture of life over the culture of death." The statement emphasizes
that support of abortion and euthanasia by any candidate “is always wrong and
can never be justified."
Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, in an August 2000 column in the
diocesan newspaper wrote “Catholic Democrats have an obligation to do everything
they can to reverse the pro-abortion policy of their party and to support those
candidates who will protect life in the womb … You can be assured that I will
challenge any Catholic in Northwestern Nebraska who claims to be a member of
the Church and at the same time supports abortion. It is not a liberal cause
that is being supported but an elitist, anti-Catholic one. There is no place
for discrimination against pre-born or partially born babies in the Catholic
Church. Catholics who are against the Church on this… are in serious dissent….They
and everyone else need to be clear about this breach with the Church. It is
not a liberal cause to support abortion. It is anti-life and anti-Church”.
Cardinal James A. Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, Catholic Standard newspaper,
October 26, 2000 (Many issues) “require careful consideration on the part of
all voters. But there is one issue that rises above the others. When you vote
on November 7, I hope and pray that you will not forget the most disenfranchised
citizens in this land - the unborn. Truly they have no voice but ours.”
Bishop William Murphy, Archdiocese of Boston, Pilot Column “The four areas
of public issues that the bishops propose for our reflection in this election
year are human life, family life, social justice and solidarity. Of these four
areas the most fundamental and the most important is human life. Defense of
human life is the only foundation on which all else must be built, or else,
all else is eventually going to collapse…”
“Every vote will count and every voice matters … we urge our fellow citizens
to see beyond party politics to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to
choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation
or mere self-interest…”(US Bishops, Living the Gospel of Life 1998, N.34).
[Abortion is] a defining issue not only personally but also socially. Poverty
can be addressed incrementally, but the death of a child is quite final. — Cardinal
Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, October 2000
“It is impossible to advance human dignity by being ‘right’ on issues like
poverty and immigration, but wrong about the most fundamental issue of all —
the right to life.” Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Denver,
American and Catholic: thoughts on responsible citizenship, October 11, 2000
Many Catholic leaders both clerical and lay have urged that citizens not vote
for anyone who does not have a strong pro-life position. I do not see how a
disciple of the Lord could ignore the fundamental importance of public policy
protecting human life. To support candidates who would continue or even expand
the possibilities for more people to die by human choice is seriously wrong.
—Bishop John Myers, Bishop of Peoria, October 17, 2000
Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. The taking
of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite
to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other
issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only
Catholics, but also the entire electorate.— Bishop James C. Timlin, D.D., Bishop
of Scranton, “The Ballot and the Right to Life” Fall 2000
I fail to understand how any Catholic can support a candidate who is outspokenly
and unambiguously "pro-choice", who supports the idea that the child
in the womb is the property of the mother to be disposed of at will, and will
make appointments to the Supreme Court that will reinforce the tremendous error
of Roe v. Wade.— Bishop William Murphy, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston
“Obviously, protecting human life is the most basic of these four priorities,
since the other three would be rendered meaningless without the first. If we
do not uphold and protect human life in its beginning at conception, there will
be no life to uphold and protect thereafter… To be a faithful and serious Catholic
necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. To be pro-choice
essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her
baby either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful
and serious member of the Church while advocating for or actively supporting
direct attacks on innocent human life.” Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of
Arlington, statement on Oct. 30, 2000
INTERNATIONAL BISHOPS
KAMPALA, Jan. 25, 2001 (LSN.ca) - Emmanuel Cardinal Wamala stated in a pastoral
letter, “We deserve leaders who will not condone immorality such as corruption,
abortion, homosexuality or any other forms of behaviour which are contrary and
offensive both to God's law and to our own culture.” He said “We should give
our votes to candidates who we think are serious in their intentions, honest
and capable of working for and with us.”
SALZBURG, Dec 11, 2000 (LSN.ca) - “The abortion law has a common denominator
with the spirit of the Nazis and of communism: We may kill”, said auxiliary
Bishop of Salzburg Andreas Laun in an interview with an Austrian magazine News.
Speaking about the law which allows women to abort “severely disabled” babies
up to the ninth month of pregnancy he said that “Hitler would have been pleased”
with it.
Referring to Dr. Heinrich Gross, an ex-Nazi physician charged with murder this
year for killing disabled babies and children in West Vienna during the Nazi
era, Laun added, “Dr. Gross as a Nazi doctor killed disabled children — only
four weeks later than we do. Must Dr. Gross go to prison just because he was
too late? We do it too. That's pure hypocrisy.”
VATICAN
VATICAN CITY, Oct 3, 2000 (LSN.ca) - Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo,
the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family has just emphasized that Catholic
politicians must according to the principles of their faith and that, “everything
collapses without respect for life.” The Cardinal said, “Politicians must have
the defense of the right of life in their own heart and mind to offer it to
the community. Without this defense, instead of contributing to the construction
of society, the politician destroys it.”
ROME, Oct 12, 2000 (LSN.ca) - A new Vatican document prepared by the Pontifical
Council for the Family for the Jubilee of Families to be celebrated this weekend
in Rome includes “legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws”
as bearing “responsibility” for the “abominable crime” of abortion - which the
document describes as “murder”.
POPE JOHN PAUL II
ROME, Oct 17, 2000 (LSN.ca) - Addressing some 300,000 pilgrims for the Jubilee
of Families on Saturday, Pope John Paul II urged Catholics to vote pro-life.
He asked that all “people of good will who believe in these (pro-life) values
remain united and strong… in political selection.” He also pleaded with the
families to “defend with all your might family values and respect for human
life, right from the moment of conception.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by LifeSite.
Permission granted for reproduction.
TOP
The London Free Press
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
By Rory Leishman
As the Liberals slide ever lower in the polls, they are becoming ever more
desperate in their attacks on the Conservatives. In a press release on
Thursday, the Liberal Party went so far as to accuse Stephen Harper and the
Conservatives of harbouring a "radical social agenda."
That's nonsense. It's not Harper and the Conservatives, but Prime Minister
Paul Martin and the Liberals who have taken to imposing radical social
change on Canadians.
Take the issue of so-called gay marriage. On June 8, 1999, Canada's elected
MPs adopted a resolution affirming that, "It is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and
should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of
marriage in Canada."
Martin voted for this resolution as did former prime minister Jean Chretien,
justice minister Anne McLellan and the great majority of other Liberal MPs.
Have the courts paid any heed? Not at all. In a direct and open expression
of contempt for Parliament, judicial activists have invoked the guarantee of
equality rights in section 15 of the Charter as a pretence for amending the
law to permit homosexual as well as heterosexual couples to marry.
Martin has done nothing to oppose this judicial subversion of democracy and
the rule of law. He has broken his promise to support all necessary steps
within the jurisdiction of Parliament to preserve the legitimate definition
of marriage. Instead, even before the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on
the issue, Martin and most of his fellow Liberal MPs have acquiesced in the
arbitrary decision of judicial activists to permit homosexuals to marry.
Harper and most of his fellow Conservatives reject such radical and
undemocratic social change. The Conservative Party vows in its election
platform to, "fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure
that issues like marriage are decided by Parliament, not the courts."
Harper says he would resort to the notwithstanding clause of the
Constitution to prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on Canadians.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler strenuously objects. In a statement last week,
he said that any attempt to invoke the notwithstanding clause would
constitute, "a moral failure of leadership."
Is that right? By Cotler's standard, Martin displayed a moral failure of
leadership on Dec. 18, 2003, when he stated in an interview with CBC Radio:
"Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force
churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that
that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the
notwithstanding clause."
Good for Martin. Like Harper, he at least understands that in democratic
principle, unelected judges should not have unbridled power to determine
vital issues of public policy.
Martin claims in the Liberal campaign manifesto that his government has
restored Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision-making. He
says: "Most votes in the House of Commons are now free votes in which MPs
can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit."
What about a vital issue like abortion? While both Martin and Harper pledge
that their governments will not introduce any abortion legislation, Harper
says the Conservatives would allow a free vote on a private member's bill on
abortion; in contrast, Martin says he would "strongly advise" his
backbenchers not to introduce such a bill.
Voters have a clear choice in this election. Those who favour gay marriage
should support the Liberal Party or the New Democrats. And the same goes for
voters who support the virtually untrammelled power of unelected judges to
impose radical new laws on Canadians in defiance of Parliament.
Harper insists that the role of the Supreme Court of Canada, "is to apply
the Charter to protect the rights laid out in the Charter; not to invent
rights that are not in the Charter." Voters who share this view should
back
the Conservative Party. It's the only major party committed to reviving
democracy and the rule of law in Canada.
- Rory Leishman
Home Page: www.roryleishman.com
TOP
U.S. Rules Morning-After Pill Can't Be Sold Over the Counter
Federal drug regulators yesterday rejected a drug maker's application to sell
a morning-after pill over the counter because of concerns about whether young
girls would be able to use it safely.
Comment: It defies logic for these abortion supporters to approve (and even
sell) the Pill to teens with a doctor's prescription yet object to banning overdoses
of these same Pills to teens without a prescription. And, of course, these abortion
supporters support excluding the girls' parents - who care the most about their
daughters health and well-being-from being involved in these "medical decisions."
(Nancy Valko, NR)
Read full coverage at NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/health/07FDA.html
TOP
The Most Important Election that will decide the moral direction of Canada.
For all Christians who cherish family and religious freedom, this election
is coined as the most important with regards to morality and freedoms.
Some of the benchmarks being used to assess candidates range from: homosexual
inclinations; abortion, at any price, at any time; those who favour moral absolutes
saying no to 'killing' before or after birth; those who say the family is the
cornerstone of any successful society and needs to be protected from imitations
and/or 'de facto' unions that mimic marriage and family; and those who recommend
that marriage and family "the traditional definition", should be enshrined
into our constitution.
Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Family Action Council, RealWomen, Focus on
the Family, the Holy See and others come down on the side of "Life and
Family".
What is one to do in today's election climate when our candidates will not
tell us where they stand on the issues? Who do I vote for and why? What if there
is not pro-family, pro-life candidate? The list and the litany of questions
go on and on.
Several years ago I heard a leader say that if a man/woman cannot speak on
behalf of unborn children, then they are not fit to be a dog catcher. Suggesting
for most that the life issues is litmus test for character and virtue.
In Nova Scotia, today we have ONLY ONE (1) 100% pro-life candidate who has
declared his position. He is with the Christian Heritage Party. All others have
ignored and/or refused to respond to questionnaires that we have put forth on
your behalf. The parties themselves have told the candidates to shut up, which
suggest that the candidates are more interested in serving the party and not
the constituent.
So what it's worth here is some strategies that have been suggested in the
election climate of 2004.
- Where your conscience will allow - vote for only a declared pro-life, pro-family
candidate.
- If there is no pro-life, pro-family candidate, some are suggesting to vote
for the lesser of evils, i.e., vote against the incumbent if that person is
NDP for example, since all NDP candidates are pro-abortion, that is Abortion
on Demand at any stage of pregnancy, up to the time of delivery before the
umbilical cord is severed. In other words, better to vote for the devil you
don't know then the one you do.
- Spoiling your ballot has also been suggested. One could write "no
pro-life, pro-family candidate" across their ballot. It is claimed that
this information is picked up by scrutineers and passed back to the party.
One could also refuse their ballot at the time of registration stating the
reason why.
If you manage to find a pro-life, pro-family candidate, volunteer to put up
a sign and help the best you can to bring him/her to a victory. Contact our
office at 902 861 1982 or our web at www.clcns.com for assistance.
H. Wills
TOP
TOP
Youth STD Cases Soar, Report Finds
[Washington Times, 2/25/04]
Sexually transmitted diseases have become so pervasive among the nation's youth
that one out of every two sexually active young people can expect to become
infected by age 25, a new report says. Young women are more at risk than young
men because the infections can "silently" hide in the female reproductive
tract, according to the study by the School of Journalism and Mass Communication
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=866
*************************
TOP
TOP
THE MORAL DEFICIT OF POLITICS
For all the talk about the democracy deficit, there is a much greater deficit
in the political arena: a morality deficit. Consider just two facts (for the
sake of brevity): o In 2000, then-prime minister Jean Chretien declared that
Canada had "social peace" on abortion, indicating that the debate
was over. The blood of more than 110,000 unborn babies killed in the womb each
year testifies to the falseness of such declarations, even if politicians imitate
ostriches as they stick their heads in the sand. o In 2003, courts in Ontario
and B.C. over-ruled 2,000-plus years of tradition, the stated intentions of
Parliament and common sense as they re-defined marriage to include homosexual
couples. To allow same-sex "marriages" - and civil unions -- is to
officially sanction inherently sinful relationships.
In both cases, the federal government failed the Canadian people by sanctioning
immorality. Not since 1992 has Parliament considered legislation that would
address the abortion issue; in 2003, it briefly considered a private member's
motion that would have required Parliament to explore whether abortion is medically
necessary. That motion's failure to pass was a sign of to what lengths Parliament
will defend the state-sanctioned and taxpayer-funded immorality of abortion.
It will take some time and much hard work to undo the abortion mentality in
this country.
On the issue of same-sex "marriage," Prime Minister Paul Martin seems
content to let the issue be dealt with by the Supreme Court, which is nothing
less than an intolerable abrogation of responsibility. In fairness to Martin,
he is not unique; no political leader in Ottawa is willing to do what is necessary
by invoking Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding
clause, to signal to the country that on fundamentally important issues, Parliament
will not cede it's responsibilities to nine unelected judges. The official opposition,
by and large, opposes same-sex "marriage," but none of the leadership
candidates has vowed to use the notwithstanding clause to maintain the traditional
definition of marriage.
That politicians are unwilling to address issues such as protecting innocent
human life or maintaining the sanctity of society's foundational institution
illustrates that whatever ails Canada's democracy, its economy or its foreign
policy, nothing threatens Canada's future as much as its morality deficit. While
governments may handle other policy issues well, our politicians turn away to
ignore this moral crisis afflicting our nation.
TOP
Promiscuous Plague
Author: Karen Testerman
Source: The World and I
Date: 2004-03-20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are the single greatest health threat
affecting our youth. A girl is four times more likely to contract an STD than
she is to become pregnant, and a young mother has on average 2.3 STDs.
We are facing a plague of massive proportions, a plague made more sinister
because it attacks not only adults but our youth. What is this crisis? It is
a pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that is encouraged by a message
of "safe sex" and an adult population that acts as if self-control
and traditional morality are outdated and without value.
Society focuses on the increase in out-of-wedlock and teen births. Meanwhile
STDs tear through our youth and adult population at alarming and deadly rates.
Pregnancy is seldom fatal (except for aborted babies), but the STDs of today
are. They are "not your father's" STDs, which were few and easily
cured with penicillin (see sidebar).
In the 1960s, syphilis and gonorrhea were the two most prevalent STDs; today,
there are more than 20 and some have as many as 80--100 strains. Despite the
fitting publicity that the deadly epidemic of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired
immune disorder syndrome (HIV/AIDS) commands, according to research at the University
of New Mexico, human papilloma virus (HPV), not HIV, is the most common STD
transmitted today.
What is the magnitude of the problem? According to recent testimony before
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, "Three to four million STDs
are contracted yearly by 15- to 19-year-olds, and another five to six million
STDs are contracted annually by 20- to 24-year-olds."
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this plague is the role adults play in it.
Failures by grown-ups are the primary cause of the pandemic among our youth.
Adults are failing our children by promoting a fatal message about sex: both
in education and in actions. Youth are allowed to believe that there is such
a thing as safe sex outside of marriage and that any sexual practice is acceptable
as long as the participants are smiling.
Marketing sex
Billboards, TV, magazines, movies, and catalogs promote the message that sex
is the way to be cool, to fit in, to solve life's challenges. Today, the initial
onset of sexual activity is occurring at younger ages, while couples delay the
decision to marry or prefer cohabitation. Dr. Meg Meeker, a pediatrician and
author of Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids, reports that half of all
students in the ninth through twelfth grades have had sexual intercourse. Additionally,
the average age for the onset of puberty in girls has dropped from 12 to 10.
There are physical and emotional consequences of engaging in sexual activity
outside of marriage. Unwed childbearing costs American taxpayers $29 billion
a year in social services, lost tax revenue, and the consequences of delinquency
and poverty among teenage parents. These teens will enter adulthood disadvantaged
and will convey this disadvantage to their children.
In 1960, 15 percent of teen births in the United States were out-of-wedlock.
More recently, despite the reduction in teen pregnancy, the out-of-wedlock birthrate
was 78 percent among teens, according to the National Center for Health Statistics
(2000).
Meanwhile, the No. 1 indicator of poverty in our nation is single-parent households
among 15- to 19-year-olds. Ninety percent of these young people will never attend
college. Eighty percent of women who choose to parent while they are teens will
live at the poverty level for 10 years or more.
Linda Waite, professor of urban sociology at the University of Chicago, and
Maggie Gallagher, affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, have
found that children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to die in infancy.
Boys raised in single-parent homes are twice as likely to commit a crime that
leads to incarceration by their early thirties.
Adolescents raised by single parents or stepfamilies are more likely to engage
in sexual intercourse and to be sexually active at an earlier age, according
to Dawn M. Upchurch, professor at the UCLA School of Public Health. None of
this takes into account the impact of postabortive trauma or the emotional trauma
of making tough decisions to allow adoption so that the child will have better
opportunities.
The data are stark, but the true disaster is the damage wreaked by STDs. A
girl is four times more likely to contract an STD than she is to become pregnant.
Today, it is likely that a young mother has on average 2.3 STDs. Syphilis, gonorrhea,
herpes, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B, HIV, and HPV are the most common. Many
of the viral STDs have multiple strains.
Sexual Russian roulette
A leading risk factor is the number of sexual partners. Vital health statistics
directly link this factor to the early onset of sexual activity. Consider the
teen who has sex with 6 people, each of whom has 6 partners. According to Dr.
Meeker, this means that 36 people have been exposed to disease.
Marcel T. Saghir, coauthor of Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive
Investigation, cites the magnification of this problem in the homosexual community,
even among those who define themselves as monogamous. The average such relationship
among homosexual males lasts less than three years. Despite attempts to portray
their choice for living as normal and healthy, homosexuals are in the highest
risk group for several of the most serious STDs.
Evidence from the National Cancer Institute that smoking shortens a person's
life by 7--10 years led to a multibillion-dollar lawsuit by state governments.
However, despite numerous studies that reveal homosexual relationships can reduce
male or female lives by 10--30 years, tolerance and political correctness reign.
As even homosexual supporters and the media admit, the increasing pressure
to accept homosexual practices as mainstream is dramatically affecting our society.
According to the New York Blade News Reports, gay men are in the highest-risk
group for several of the most serious diseases, including STDs.
Instability and promiscuity are characteristic of homosexual relationships.
Even the Gay Lesbian Medical Association agrees with mainstream reports that,
despite decades of intensive efforts to educate, HIV/AIDS continues to increase
among the homosexual community.
According to another homosexual newspaper, the Washington Blade, HPV is "almost
universal" among homosexuals. HPV, often asymptomatic, is believed to be
the causative vector of cervical cancer in women. It can also lead to anal cancer
in men.
Add to this the confusion about what constitutes sexual activity. Is it just
penile penetration of the vagina? Does oral sex count? Is heavy petting to be
included? What about practices of homosexuals? Common wisdom seems to promote
the idea that these questions are irrelevant, as a condom can prevent the passing
of bodily fluids, and thus HIV/AIDS.
Beyond bodily fluids
Sadly, this misconception leads to even more danger, as the passing of body
fluids is not the only way to contract these diseases. Even a properly used
and defect-free latex condom will not completely protect against all STDs. Any
genital contact can cause an infection! Genital warts are the common name for
HPV. The most common and contagious of STDs, HPV is passed by skin-to-skin contact.
It is the leading cause of cervical cancer and in its cancerous form does not
exhibit any symptoms.
Alas, most of our sexually active, infected youth do not know they have a disease.
Some viruses can lie dormant in the body for up to 30 years before symptoms
develop. Ninety percent of those infected with chlamydia exhibit no symptoms
and receive no treatment.
According to abstinence speaker Pam Stenzel, the statistics of this disaster
are staggering, especially among our youth. Every day in America, 12,000 teenagers
contract a sexually transmitted disease. How many is an acceptable loss?
The American Medical Association recommends that sexually active girls be tested
for chlamydia every six months. Why just girls? Aren't boys infected as well?
Yes, men carry the infection, but as is often the case, girls endure most of
the consequences. Stenzel points out that the female reproductive system is
open; scar tissue builds up on the cervix, fallopian tubes, and ovaries as a
result of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from the chlamydia infection.
With a single chlamydia infection, there is a 25 percent chance of sterility.
With a second infection there is a 50 percent chance of sterility. If there
is a third infection, it is almost certain that the girl will be sterile--all
due to PID.
This is why, some people reason, we should promote a dual message and sell
teens on abstinence with "safe sex" as a backup. The dual message
approach says that abstinence is best, but if you choose to engage in genital
contact, use some form of contraception, usually condoms. This comprehensive
message indicates that our youth are no more than bundles of uncontrollable
hormones--that they are no more than mere animals. Many public school sexuality
education programs instruct youth in the proper use of condoms and contraception.
The information given is that condoms significantly reduce the chance of STD
infection.
In reality, even if a condom is used 100 percent of the time, a sexually active
young person is at risk to contract STDs including gonorrhea, chlamydia, and
trichomoniasis. Even when used, a condom fails to prevent pregnancy 12 percent
of the time, according to the Maryland Center for Mental and Child Health. Despite
faithful use of the condom, the person who engages in genital contact is not
immune from contracting an STD that spreads through skin-to-skin contact.
It is time that adults cleaned up their act and encouraged youth to aspire
to achieve the goal of being responsible, thinking people. Young people need
adults who will trust them enough to give them the information they need to
make good choices.
Knowledge is power
Young people need to know that sex without boundaries is deadly. There are
consequences when engaging in genital contact outside the bonds of marriage.
Young people need to know that both parties should wait until they make a lifelong
commitment to one another in marriage to have sex. Within marriage, they have
a better chance to be healthier, to attain a higher level of education, to be
financially secure, to be happier and enjoy sex more, but only if that sex is
with their marital partner.
The only way to protect against STDs that can have lifelong, physically and
emotionally painful consequences is to abstain from genital contact outside
of marriage. According to the University of Chicago research in Sex in America,
researchers report that when a marriage is intact, the couple almost never have
sex outside their marital relationship.
Promiscuous sexual practices, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are highly
costly to Americans. The health of present and future generations is in jeopardy.
The idea that avoiding pregnancy or homosexual behavior is enough is dangerous.
This attitude completely ignores the possibility and consequences of exposure
to STDs. Add to this the disease of substance abuse and emotional trauma due
to abortion, depression, anxiety, and subsequent problems, and it is clear that
one should avoid promiscuity at all costs.
Despite the rhetoric, everyone is not doing it! Over 50 percent of our youth
are not engaging in genital contact with one another. Given the information,
our young people are capable of making informed decisions. Once we realize this,
we can give them (and society) a future without this plague.
The promiscuous plague has many facets. Messages in the media, peer pressure,
alcohol, and drugs all influence teen sexual behavior. The biggest influences,
of course, are parents. The actions of young people reflect what adults transmit.
This is done through how adults behave and what is communicated as acceptable.
By allowing the media to undermine morality, the plague is fostered. By engaging
in dangerous sexual practices, the plague is encouraged.
More important, by abdicating parental responsibility, the plague is promoted.
A recent survey of teens conducted by L.B. Whitbeck, professor of sociology
at the University of Nebraska, found that parents have the strongest effect
on a teen's decision whether to have sex. Parents influence the attitude of
their teens by their own marital status, their attitudes, the amount of supervision
they provide, and how involved they are with their children.
Ultimately, the most effective inoculation against this plague is effective
parenting. Certainly parenting would be made easier if the entertainment media
reduced their hard sell of "anything goes" sex and schools truly taught
nonmarital abstinence and credited our youth with the ability to use good sense.
If given the opportunity, teens can and will make good choices. Our next generation
needs to know it is okay to say no!
TOP
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: C-250 from EFC
Dear friends,
EFC has a great sample letter to the Prime Minister regarding a current poll
that is divisive and discriminatory against Evangelical Christians, along with
a summary and action plan regarding Bill C-250, both found below, and at their
web site: http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/social/initiatives.asp#C_250.
Yours in Christ's service,
Gloria Turner
Director, HWFAC, PACE
www.hamiltonfamilyaction.org
Letter to the Prime Minister:
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/social/initiatives.asp#C_250
******************************************
Bill C-250
Hate Literature, Bill C-250 is now law
Bill C-250 law received Royal Assent on April 29. See our Press Release (http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/media/pr_viewer.asp?Press_Release_ID=186)
responding to Bill C-250 passing in the Senate.
We urge all Christians to be neither provoked nor intimidated by these new
measures. Instead:
Let us pray that police and government will prevent abuse of this law.
Let us continue to express the call to holiness in Canada with gentleness and
respect.
Let us continue to teach and practice the full counsel of the Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, without fear.
11 senators opposed the bill, and 3 abstained. We are extremely grateful to
all those Senators who listened to our concerns and stood against this measure.
Only time will tell how the revised Hate Propaganda Law will be used or interpreted.
However to help provide a better understanding the EFC will hold The Church
And Sexual Orientation workshop (http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/calendar/event_viewer.asp?Event_ID=176)
on June 10 in Mississauga, dealing with some of the ministry, and policy and
legal issues surrounding same sex- attraction, including Bill C-250. This highly
rated seminar is not to be missed.
Bill C-250 (An Act to Amend the Criminal Code) adds "sexual orientation"
to the current list of identifiable groups (i.e. colour, race, religion and
ethnic origin) in the "hate propaganda" sections of the Criminal Code
of Canada.
Jump to the bill. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-250/C-250_3/C-250_cover-E.html)
Look at the full text of the "hate propaganda" sections (318-320)
of the Criminal Code as amended by C-250. (http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/pdf/Hate%20Propaganda%20Laws%20after%20C-250.pdf)
History:
During the previous session of Parliament Bill C-250 passed at the House of
Commons with only one amendment. This bill was reinstated in the new session,
and has now passed second reading. On February 20, the bill was referred to
the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The EFC continues
to have concerns that this legislation will threaten religious expression on
the marriage issue and may result in certain Bible passages being considered
to be "promotion of hatred."
Actions:
Pray for the EFC and others who are responding to this issue.
Resources: links at http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/social/initiatives.asp#C_250
The EFC's new booklet on religious freedom, Withering Rights.
The EFC's Hate Propaganda: Submission to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Bill C-250
The EFC's Oral Comments on Bill C-250 before the Justice Committee
The EFC's Talking Points on Bill C-250.
Hate Propaganda Laws after Bill C-250.
TOP
**********************
Information of the Bus Tour and Pilgrimage to National March
for Life, St. Anne de Beaupre, St. Joseph's Oratory and Ottawa wind-up and photos
available now at here. (Click)
(Life is the Only Choice)
National March for Life in Ottawa 2004
Thirty Nine (39) Nova Scotians made the trip to March for
Life. .
This time last year (2003) Herm, Rose, Cyril C., Pauline M., and
Sr. Cecile Francois LeBlanc motored to Ottawa taking in the Shrine at Cap -de-la-Madeleine,
Ottawa and St. Anne de Beaupre. We had such a memorable trip that too included
a visit to an Eastern Rite church in Vanier. Our host Fr. Francois Beyouti was
a gracious host who invited us back to his parish this year. Our trip was so
full of surprises that we decided that we should organize a bus trip that would
be a tour and a pilgrimage. So it was to be in 2004.
.Our first trip to Ottawa for the March was about five years ago
with the help of Don Kelly who is a member of the KOC in Greenwood, late Jim
Wood of Digby and Herm Wills of Sackville, President of CLC Nova Scotia. Don
stepped up to the plate again this year and helped to arrange a coach for 38
pilgrims from Nova Scotia. We had hoped for a spiritual director for the trip
but none were available. We started our trip from Middleton, NS picking up passengers
along the way from Yarmouth to the Strait of Canso.
We started our day with prayer, devotions and videos en route
to our various destinations. We were strangers when we left but friends in Christ
when we returned home. On our travel we had people who were able to lead us
in prayer and song, with a strong devotion to the Holy Family. Our second day
we stopped at Notre Dame du Cap, for evening Holy Hour, Mass and a Candlelight
Vigil. The following morning we started the day with Mass and a farewell blessing
from Fr. Oullet. We motored to Montreal and had an enjoyable dinner in Westmount
and then took a brief tour and stop at St. Joseph's Oratory and the day then
culminated in Ottawa at the Candlelight Vigil at the Canadian Tribute to Human
Rights Monument.
Several speakers were presented at the Vigil, an Anglican Minister,
Fr. Bob Bedard, and a Rabbi who gave a rousing speech on the so called 'pro-choice'.
Several youth leaders were on hand to present a very lively presentation and
hope for the future.
The following day we attended Mass at Notre Dame Cathedral with
Archbishop Exner as the main celebrant with fellow Nova Scotian, Bishop Richard
Smith of Pembroke, ON. Bishop Smith sends his regards to his fellow Nova Scotians.
The mass had in attendance 50 priest. Concurrent to this celebration was another
at the Anglican Cathedral for fellow travelers. The KOC provided a color guard
for the event with two or our pilgrims participating, Hector Saulnier, Pro Life
Chair for the NS Knights and from Weymouth, NS, and Joe MacLellan from Antigonish.
After a brief lunch we gathered on the Hill to hear civic and
religious leaders speak out on LIFE. Unfortunately the parade had to start before
we could hear all the pep talks. The crowd of 3500 took to the street at 1PM
for the march and much of it was captured in essence by yours truly and presented
on our web.
That evening the Annual Rose Dinner Banquet took place with the
guest speaker being Sandy Rios, former executive director of Concerned Women
of America, who gave a rousing speech on family and life. Being recognized by
the organizers too were the youth and the active participation of the KOCs.
The following day we ventured to Vanier to visit a Melkite Church,
of the Eastern Rite, wow what a beautiful expression of Holiness was presented
to the pilgrims.They were truly awe struck at the beauty, the Holiness and Reverence
given to our Lord and with such simple gestures. We are looking to going back
to spend more time visiting our Eastern brethren.
Later that day we arrived in Quebec city for a rest over and moved
to visit St. Anne on Saturday morning, many pilgrims had waited for this moment.
We were treated to Mass in the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, where several
years ago a statue of Mary was installed to honor her during her pregnancy.
The statue is to remain until abortion is once again 'no more' in our land.
From here we visit the Albert Gilles gallery where we witnessed
50 silver tablets dedicated to the Life of Christ and 15 year project of the
owner, now deceased. Truly amazing pieces of art and worth every moment spent
there. If you ever visit St. Anne de Beaupre, be sure to visit the Gallery it
is on the way along the main highway. After leaving the gallery we took a quick
motor tour of old Quebec and began our prayerful journey home.
A great visit , pilgrimage filled with prayer, song, devotion
and commitment to the 'unborn'. Look for our pilgrimage next year and plan to
attend now. The next March for Life will be May 12th, 2005.
**********************
TOP
