Life Exchange

On October 23rd 1993 Robert Latimer from Battleford, Saskatchewan
“drowned” his 12 year old daughter Tracy with Carbon Monoxide in the cab of his truck while he watched, timed the process and waited. He set about his plan as soon as his wife and children left for church.

This was an act he had contemplated for at least five days after Tracy had returned from the doctor with the date for her hip surgery and coincidentally the same day the family were offered a fulltime placement for Tracy in the Centre in North Battleford.

He destroyed the evidence, placed Tracy back in bed and pretended he knew nothing, either to his family or even to police.

Court testimony establishes that he had considered and weighed up how he would kill Tracy, for almost a week.

Latimer admitted that he thought about combining an overdose of valium, shooting her in the head, or burning her with fire.

Finally he decided upon gassing (drowning) her with carbon monoxide, and the rest is history. Latimer has never shown remorse and now in an exclusive interview on Radio-Canada he wants a new trial and is said to be angered over how he was treated. Well tough! In my estimation you got off too (ten years in prison) lightly for such a callous, pre-meditated murder of a twelve year old who had the right to depend on and trust you to protect and care for her.

What makes me saddest of all is that many Canadians would describe Latimer as a “good father” and agree with him that he should not be punished you know why? – Because Tracy had Cerebral Palsy and lived with multiple disabilities. She attended school, family gatherings and would only wear red nail varnish, loved watching bonfires and windscreen wipers!!

Let’s switch for a second to another father here in Chatham, Ontario. In June 1999 these words rang out in an Ontario Court to Thomas Dewald, who just like Robert Latimer, showed no remorse for the murder of his children.

Thomas Dewald drowned his two children Christopher 12 and Jennifer 10 in Lake Eyrie, he held them down until they drowned. Judge Thompson’s sentencing remarks included the following;

“I have no doubt that a parent murdering their child is the worst possible breach of trust…It is without doubt, an example of the worst crime by the worst offender..The Public must know that the courts will not tolerate a breach of trust of this magnitude. It is the duty of the media to get the message out that the safety of our children is a sacred trust that must be protected at all costs..”

It is recorded that Judge Thompson in a voice of icy contempt told Thomas Dewald, “What you did was contemptible, despicable, disgusting and cowardly”.

Judge Thompson doubled Dewald’s sentence to 23 years with no eligibility for release until 2022.

Why is Thomas Dewald in prison and Robert Latimer free? The only difference I can see is that Christopher and Jennifer were able bodied children and Tracy was not.

Surely, Judge Thompson’s words should be repeated to Robert Latimer. What you did was contemptible, despicable, disgusting and cowardly and you belong in jail and someone should have thrown away the key.

We cannot tolerate two levels of justice, one for those who kill the able bodied and one for those who kill Canadians living with one or more disabilities.

Jakki

I have sent the following to a national newspaper and it will probably not be printed – so you get it. I am responding to an article regarding the killing of 100 dogs in British Columbia last Spring. The owner claims that some were sickly or too old and I suppose like many businesses the bottom line is the driving force. I was struck by the comparison to the response my educational pro-life work solicits. The outcry and outrage over the killing of these dogs compared to the silence and censorship on the greatest moral issue of our time, induced abortion.

At the outset, I agree that it appears the shooting of 100 dogs owned by OAW seems extreme. However, I find it hard to be silent when I see how my fellow Canadians decry the “execution style” “devestating killings” which WorkSafeBC “describes with gruesome detail…”

There are “threats of protests and boycotts” on the Internet. The National Post alone has run two extensive articles on the subject this week.

The sadness I feel is very deep. I have spent the last 26 years encouraging people to consider adoption rather than killing. I have struggled with the fact that our provincial government pays for this killing.

I have also discouraged euthanasia. Those I defend are equally”too old” “too sick” or “not adoptable”.

Yet many Canadians oppose my philosophy, demanding the killing, demanding euthanasia. You see, those I defend are children in the womb and those who are now frail elderly, or have disabilities, illness or are dying.

These little ones before birth are slaughtered at the rate of 300 a day in this country and unlike the OAW dogs they do not even get a grave, but are incinerated with hospital or clinic waste.

Those vulnerable to the euthanasia lobby are already experiencing society’s distaste and change of attitude.

Where is the outcry, the threat of protest here? Funny really when you think of it. WorkSafeBC can describe “the gruesome detail” of this canine slaughter and the media will bring it to our attention.

However, try describing or showing the slaughter of humans by abortion on any university campus across Canada and you get shut down or arrested.

OAW owned the dogs and Canada treats women as though they own the child in their womb. Strange, that we will allow and pay for one owner to kill yet villify the other.

Where is the justice and where is the outcry?

Respectfully submitted

Mrs Jakki Jeffs
Executive Director
Alliance for Life Ontario

Many of you who might read this post are probably not aware that today marks 23 years since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our abortion law.

You may also not know that our laws had already been liberalised in 1969 making induced abortion legal if the mother ‘s health or life were considered to be threatened by her continued pregnancy.

Even in 1969, any medical professional worth his or her salt knew that the direct killing of the child in the womb was not necessary to save the mother’s life. The definition of health although recommended to be defined as “the absence of illness or disease” very quickly included, mental, emotional, social, financial health, literally providing choice abortion on demand throughout all nine months.

The politicians tried to draw a curtain of respectability around this barbaric practice by only allowing induced abortion in hospitals after an abortion committee had sanctioned the referral from a doctor. Very quickly the annual abortion statistics reached tens of thousands. Doesn’t say much for the state of pregnancy care in Canada if 1,000,000 mothers had to have their child killed to save their health or life between 1969 and 1988!

In reality Canada has had choice or elective abortion throughout all nine months for any or no reason for 43 years and during that time 3,300,000 children growing in the womb have been slaughtered. May 14th 1969, when our parliament made it open season on the most vulnerable member of our family, marks a tragedy for this young country.

In January 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law marking another sad day in our history. This stripped every last vestige of Criminal Code protection from children in the womb and provided the abortion industry with the greatest gift it could have wanted – the chance to make billions of dollars on the backs of scared and abandoned women.

You know, I have always been intrigued that those who demand choice abortion and speak of so called “women’s rights to abortion” have been led for years in Canada by a male abortionist. Seems like a conflict of interest to me regarding the profit to be made out of women’s misery. I would also question why a self appointed group representing a few women need a man at the helm.

Before you all think I am some manhating female please be assured I love men!!!! My dad was one and so is my son and my many uncles, nephews and colleagues. However, I am a woman that believes we are all equal, men, women and children born or not. I will let my voice speak for me, knowing that I am loved and supported by the wonderful men in my life.

I know however, that all men are not wonderful. I have sat beside many a woman, young or older, facing an unexpected pregnancy who have been abandoned by the fathers of their children. I have listened to verbal abuse from men who have not appreciated some of our pro-life commercials on television – especially the one that called men heroes for staying to help the woman carrying their un-anticipated child.

Over the years I have seen the good, bad and ugly of humanity and yet the barbarity of induced abortion is the worst of horrors. What makes this so awful is that we as Canadians have devalued one whole class of human beings – those growing in the womb. In reality we are a country that agrees with slavery having denied personhood under the law to our youngest members and defining them as not human.

“The law of Canada does not recognise the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights” (Supreme Court of Canada 1997)

Is this any different to;

“ In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person..” (Virginia Supreme Court 1858)

Or;

“An Indian is not a person withing the meaning of the Constitution“(George Canfield US 1881)

Or even;

“The Reichsgerict itself refused to recognize Jews as “persons” in the legal sense” (German Supreme Court 1936)

And;

“The statutory word “persons” did not in these circumstances include women” British voting rights 1909

In 1929 at the culmination of the Canadian “Person’s Case”, Lord Sankey reversing the Supreme Court decision that women were not included in the legal definition of “qualified persons” stated the following;

“[t}he exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours," and that "to those who ask why the word[person"]should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not?”

Yet, here in Canada and many countries across the world those barbarous days continue regarding the enslavement of children in the womb. The obvious answer, to those who ask the question why should the word “person” not include the child in the womb, is why should it not?

We have here in Canada the legal doctrine of “the Living Tree” which means that our Constitution must be broad in interpretation and easily adapt to modern times. There is no doubt that we are human before birth at every stage. There is no doubt that we are alive, growing and self directed. Only the worst possible discrimination would deny the existance of the child before birth.

Why is the child before birth not a person? Why is the child before birth not included in the term “everyone” in our Charter? Why do we continue this slavery? Why do we abandon women to the vultures in the abortion industry?

Jakki Jeffs

For the last 26 years I have worked full-time in the educational pro-life movement in Ontario. Everyday issues which effect the dignity of and respect for human life and human relationships just pour into my consciousness via the social media and other networks with which I am connected. Just for instance, this morning before 8.30am I had dealt with the so called Philadelphia “House of Horrors”, The European Court of Human Rights designating suicide as a “right”, our annual memorial of the abortion of 3.3 million Canadians since 1969 and a challenge from a colleague to remember that we are all innocent – even in the face of overwhelming evidence – until we are found guilty.

A bit much for anyone so early in the day and I do not see why it is me that has to explain to the European Court of Human Rights the difference between a human right and a human choice!!!

But I would like to highlight the horror of Philadelphia where a “doctor” ran a family practice/abortion mill that has been described by “Grand Jury XX111 in the following way.

“This is a case about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women… it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants…The clinic reeked of animal urine, courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam (and defecate)freely….Disposable medical supplies were not disposed of; they were reused over and over again…And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs were fetal remains…the real business of the “Women’s Medical Society” was not health; it was profit…the only question that really mattered was whether you had cash…The bigger the baby the more he charged…Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered; he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise”. The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping”…Dr Gosnell did not just kill babies. He was also a deadly threat to mothers.”

What is so shocking about the revelations of the 40 year history of this slaughterhouse is how the public and legal line of defense broke down.

I ask you where was the Public Health department whose job it was and is to ensure compliance with provision of safe care? One inspection in ten years and then none! Apparently it was concluded that inspections would be “putting up a barrier to women” seeking abortions.

Why weren’t the many complaints against this facility investigated – including the death of one and possibly two young women?

It appears that even at State level officials did not want to “know” what was going on – so babies died and women died or were seriously harmed while officials chose to do nothing.

What is so sad is that it took the attention of the press to spur any movement against Dr Gosnell.

I take you back to the Grand Jury report again where it states;

“So too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar’s death [drugs administered at the facility killed this young pregnant woman]. Despite his efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anaesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen. Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that. But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of colour, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”

I cannot begin to understand why authorites. whom evidence states, knew what was going on – could ignore it – except that I believe it was because the ultimate issue here is induced abortion.

Could this happen in Canada? Are we too, so paralysed by”the political football of abortion” that we do not hold abortion facilities to the same high standards?

I know that you can visit abortion facility websites and find the cost of abortion.The bigger the child the higher the cost – all this under the smiling face of an abortionist!!

You can even have a virtual tour after you have checked out the fee schedule if you do not have provincial insurance.

Could it possibly be that those who support induced abortion want it so badly that both children before birth and their mothers can be sacrifed to this barbaric practice?

While I know there are many who will be very quick in telling me that this “house of horrors” situation could never happen in Canada. I cannot help the uneasy feeling, I have that like the Women’s Medical Society in Philadelphia, provision of induced abortion is not about health but about financial profit. 3.3 million Canadians killed before birth since 1969 at between $500 and $1,000 dollars from the public purse for private choice. Seems a pretty lucrative business to me on the backs of scared and abandoned women!

I still cannot understand why the National Abortion Federation representative did not demand an investigation – but maybe she did not want an abortionist to have such negative publicity – wait a minute though they keep telling me this case is not about abortion but about not following the rules. Yeah right!!!!!!

Jakki

The Canadian celebration of International Women’s Week, March 7th to 13th was a significant event for our country. Even Canadian history includes an era when our nation failed to recognize women as “persons” under the law. It is important to celebrate our progress, review remaining challenges and discern future steps to achieve equality for all women at every stage of development and every aspect of their lives, including before their birth.

Canadian women were not considered persons in law until October 18th, 1929. We see the oppressive, unjust, discriminatory and arbitrary nature of this clearly in 2010.  In deciding the “Persons Case” in 1929, the Privy Council explained: “The exclusion of women from all public office is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, and to those who ask why the word person should not include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?

“Alliance for Life Ontario echos this same question today, with regard to the girl and boy child before birth, says Jakki Jeffs, executive director of Alliance for Life Ontario.

“The science of embryology, amazing technological advances, such as ultra-sound, fetal surgery and intrauterine photography prove the humanity of the child in the womb beyond any shadow of doubt,” continues Jeffs.  This scientific evidence has compelled Alliance for Life Ontario to expand its outreach with the launching of its second website, www.personhood.ca.  Among other things, the website encourages visitors to sign a petition asking the government to extend full legal protection to every Canadian from their biological beginnings. The signed petitions will be presented in Parliament on Person’s Day, October 18, 2010.

Denying the humanity of pre-born Canadians robs them of the designation of person and consequently legal protection.  Political ideology, convoluted jurisprudence and societal complacency should not permit the continuation of discrimination towards the youngest member of the human family.

Denying personhood to the preborn child places us in a made-in-Canada time warp of barbarism and injustice. The number of Canadians killed by induced abortion since 1969 is over 3 million. To those who ask why personhood should not be granted to the preborn, we ask, why not?

-30-

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!