PRO LIFE REPORTS NEW BRUNSWICK R

A campaign to run pro-life ads run in Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John during January stirred lots of community debate. In Fredericton the city refused to run the ads in bus shelters, creating much controversy. In Moncton and Saint John the ads were featured on billboards, leading to much debate in the case of the former.

The ads, part of a national campaign designed by LifeCanada, feature the image of a pregnant woman with an unborn child, refer to Canada’s legal vacuum in protecting the unborn, and pose the question, Abortion: Have We Gone Too Far?

In December Fredericton Right to Life learned from the local Transit Division that pro-life ads were prohibited by city policy. This was a surprise, since the group had had no difficulties running bus shelter ads on the abortion-breast cancer link in previous years.

The policy says no "political" advertising shall be permitted. The City Clerk explained the policy applies to ads concerning public policy, but not to election ads because people have a legal right to run such ads.

Peter Ryan of NB Right to Life commented, "So there is no legal right to express views on public policy? I find it strange that the policy does not apply to what the average person would consider ‘political’ ads, i.e. election ads, but it does apply to issues like abortion which are more social than political. This policy really stifles free speech," he said, and it will be challenged.

Mayor Brad Woodside says if the city allowed pro-life ads they’d have to allow pro-choice ones too. Ryan says he’d have no problem with that. "Isn’t that what democracy is all about?" Meanwhile Fredericton RTL proceeded to run radio versions of the ad.

In Moncton, where NB Right to Life sponsored two billboards, a City of Moncton spokesman pointed out authority for billboard content rests with the ad company (Pattison Outdoor) that leases city-owned land.

Writing on the controversy, Moncton Times and Transcript columnist Lynda MacGibbon stated that the ad promotes thought and discussion and "represents freedom of expression at its best."

Above: The ad banned in Fredericton

Text reads, The human heart begins to beat 22 days after conception. Currently in Canada that heart can be stopped up until birth. No medical reason needed.

Has Abortion Gone Too Far and the Debate Been Too Little?

Joanne Byfield, The Calgary Herald 28 Jan 2008

Three cities in Canada, to date, have refused to allow abortion ads to be shown on city-owned transit shelters. Fredericton and Kelowna rejected them outright. The city of Hamilton, responding to three complaints by citizens and one city councillor who said he was "offended," removed the ads after they went up. What did the ads say? They were part of a national campaign spearheaded by LifeCanada, a national educational pro-life group, to mark the 20thanniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down all legal restrictions on abortion. The ads were sponsored by local pro-life groups.\At this point, many, having read the "pro-life" tag, are picturing bloody, aborted babies and preachy moralistic slogans. In fact, the ads, which you can see at www.AbortionInCanada.ca, feature a photo of a pregnant woman and the words (with slight variations in some locations), "9 months. The length of time abortion is allowed in Canada. No medical reason needed. Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Sound offensive to you? If so, what is it, specifically, that bothers you? It can't be the image of the pregnant woman. If it is the statement of fact that abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and that a woman does not need a medical reason to have one, you should be on my side. Maybe you don't think anyone should be allowed to question Canada's current policy on abortion. Or do you resent that we are drawing attention to it? As long as Canadians are unaware, we can maintain the pretence that we've reached an acceptable compromise, or "social peace" on abortion. In the reactions I've heard both in the media and at our office, people say the ads aren't true or they mislead. People don't believe that women can get abortions, especially late-term abortions, without having a life-threatening or serious medical condition. Many don't believe second and third trimester abortions happen at all, and most don't know that almost all abortions in this country, over 100,000 a year, are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded health-care system.

Here are the facts:

There is no law restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. An unborn baby is not considered a human being under the law until he or she is outside the mother's body. Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in each province can impose guidelines about when abortions should be performed, but they are not laws and most of them don't require a medical reason. We don't know for sure how many late-term abortions are performed because when the court struck down the law in 1988, it also removed reporting requirements so that detailed information is not available for about two-thirds of the abortions performed. With that limited database, Statistics Canada figures show that in 2004, there were 4,880 second and third trimester abortions, including 401 abortions after 20 weeks, the point of viability according to the Canadian Medical Association. There were 45 third trimester abortions that year, including five after 33 weeks' gestation. If detailed information was available for all abortions, the actual numbers could be three times higher. Critics of the ads say, "That's misleading. You don't know the situation of the women having those abortions. They could have serious, life-threatening health problems." Perhaps they do, but why don't we have the evidence? We have no basis to assume that's the reason for the hundreds of abortions after the point of viability. In fact, two years ago in the Calgary Herald, Dr. Margaret Somerville, a bioethicist at McGill University, related two instances in which she was consulted by doctors about post-32 week abortions on healthy women. One was for a graduate student who was afraid to tell her parents she was pregnant and the other was a married woman who had been told her child had a cleft palate, a correctable impediment, and she did not want a "defective" child. Dr. Somerville said, "The physicians who called me believed that was unethical, but were unsure how to handle the situation." That is, under the law, they had no reason to refuse to perform an abortion. That is where an unlimited, unrestricted "woman's right to choose" has brought us. That leads me back to the LifeCanada ad campaign and the question: "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" I'd say yes, and I invite others to get informed and then join the debate.

Joanne Byfield is president of LifeCanada/VieCanada

The Victim Within
By Ken Epp, National Post - Nov. 27, 2007

It is said that real men don't cry. Well, either that statement is untrue or I'm an anomaly. I find myself with tears in my eyes every time I hear reports of a family that has suffered the loss of a wife, daughter or sister who was pregnant.

It is always difficult to lose a loved one. The pain is compounded when the death is as a result of murder. And it is compounded yet again when the woman is pregnant, which means the family must mourn also for the loss of the unborn child they were so eagerly anticipating. Now consider how these family members feel when they learn that, according to our law, there was no child - that there was only one death. That situation must change.

To that end, I recently tabled a private member's bill in the House of Commons - Bill C484 - which, if passed into law, will ensure that unborn children who are victimized as a result of their mother's murder will be recognized by our courts.

Regrettably, there have been numerous instances of such crimes in Canada in recent years. Two such horrible murders occurred in Edmonton, one involving 19-year-old Olivia Talbot, who was seven months pregnant, and the other involving 29-year-old Lianna White, who was four months pregnant. In Toronto, there was the recent case of Aysun Sesen, who was seven months pregnant. In Winnipeg, 24-year-old Roxanne Fernando was killed because she refused to have an abortion. In each case, the families pleaded for recognition that two lives were lost.

There are compelling reasons to support my private member's bill. The legislation is focused on protecting the choice of a woman to bring her pregnancy to term, and to give birth to her child. It gives support to grieving families and recognizes that if someone has taken away the life of an unborn child against the mother's will, that legal sanctions must be in place for that violation.

Both were shot and killed during the 7th month of pregnancy. Present Canadian law views Lane as a non-entity. I know there will be opposition. Some activists will attempt to argue that the legal change I’m proposing will interfere with a woman’s right to have an abortion. But the bill is explicit on this point: The criminal is liable in regard to the unborn child only is he/she is already committing an offence against the mother of the child. It is not an offence in Canadian law for a woman to obtain an abortion when that is her choice.

This Bill makes it an offence to end the pregnancy when it is not her choice. "For greater certainty," reads the proposed legislation, "this section does not apply in respect of conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented." It can't be clearer than that. Moreover, for the mother's protection, the bill explicitly does not apply "in respect of any act or omission by the mother of the child."

This legislation is inspired by compassion for murder victims and their legitimate demands for justice - justice that recognizes the lost life of an unborn child when its mother is murdered. For too long, the cries of these victims have not been heard. It's time Canadians started listening.

- Ken Epp is the MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park.

                            Woman Victimized by Abortion Speaks Out
                      WASHINGTON, DC - Joyce Zounis has had seven abortions beginning at age 15. Commenting
                     on the 35th anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion on demand, she said,
                     “I was wrong, and so was the Supreme Court." She said she looks forward to the day when women
                       and babies are protected from the harm of abortion. (LifeNews.com Jan. 23, 2008)

Letter: My Little Patient

Published Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Waxahachie (Texas) Daily Light

To the Editor,

Forty-five million have been aborted since the Supreme Court legalized it 35 years ago. But there is one among these millions I personally will never forget, because I saw him do the seemingly impossible –– he survived his abortion. When I met him in the operating room he was moving his arms and legs and looked as if he wanted to cry. The abortionist seemed uncomfortable.

He was a tiny human being who just minutes before had been legally a “non-person” and had no rights. Now, after surviving the procedure, he had become a legal “person” and had a right to have us try to save him. Such is the twisted logic of the pro-choice position.

I carried him to his NICU bed. We did everything we could, but over time our efforts proved futile. His breathing grew labored. His grimace became more pronounced. To me he looked like he was struggling against something he had no way to comprehend. He died after living a few hours. Abortion is now an intensely personal issue for me. I believe it is an offense against the most vulnerable among us. My little patient put a face on it for me. Why can so many babies like him can be killed, while the rest of us have our lives and rights protected? Pro-life citizens across America are observing Sanctity of Human Life Week. During this week I will remember my little patient who helped me put a face on those 45 million innocent human beings.

Ron Bryce, M.D.

Majority of Canadians Want Abortion Restrictions

Almost two-thirds of Canadians would support some legal restriction on abortion, with one-third supporting protection for human life from conception onward, according to an Environics Research poll commissioned by LifeCanada.

Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents said they would support legislation making it a separate crime to kill or injure an unborn child while assaulting the mother. That number rose to 75% among women surveyed.

A majority of respondents said they would also support laws requiring informed consent for women seeking abortions and parental consent for girls 18 or younger.

Almost two-thirds polled said abortions should only be funded by tax payers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest——most of the more than 100,000 abortions that take place every year in Canada are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded system.

The Focus Canada poll of 2,047 Canadians was conducted between September 17 and October 14, with a margin of error of ±2.2% nineteen times out of twenty.

(Source: LifeCanada E-Newsflash November 2007)

Adoption the Way to Go

I have a simple argument against abortion. Thirty-three years ago my parents wanted to have a baby.Unable to conceive, they turned to their only option, adoption. They waited for 13 years before they were handed me.

My birth mother was 17 when she had me, I was an accident, unwanted and the only and best thing she ever did for me was give me to a loving home. My adoptive parents are my real parents.

Why shouldn't babies from accidental pregnancies be given to families that pray everyday for a baby? Please consider adoption, I know I thank my birth mother every time I drive by the abortion clinic.

-Erin Williams, Fredericton, NB. Letter to Editor, Daily Gleaner - Feb. 6, 2008

Right to Peaceful Protest Remains Uncertain

Dishonesty of Pro-Abortion Allegations Exposed

The freedom of New Brunswick pro-lifers to peacefully protest the killing of unborn children remains uncertain. But the falsehood of allegations by abortion supporters against pro-lifers has now been exposed.

Justice Minister T.J. Burke says he has not yet decided whether to recommend that his government introduce a law to ban protest in certain locations such as near abortion facilities.

New Brunswick Right to Life maintains that no-protest bubble zones violate constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, and that such drastic measures are unnecessary. A similar law in BC, whose constitutionality is under challenge, bars any protest within 50 meters of abortion facilities and doctor's offices.

“In BC even if you stand in silent prayer near an abortuary you can be thrown in jail,” says NBRL executive director Peter Ryan. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposes such laws as a suppression of social debate.

NB abortion rights activists have been pushing for bubble zones for several months. NBRL is alarmed by their vilification of pro-life protesters outside Fredericton's Morgentaler abortuary as a threat to public safety. “I know each of these protesters,” say Peter Ryan. “They are some of New Brunswick's finest, kindest citizens. They pose no danger to anyone.”

In a November op-ed piece in The Telegraph-Journal the head of the NB Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ginette-Pettipas Taylor, accused pro-lifer protesters of various forms of “bullying.” In a published reply, Peter Ryan refuted the allegations and called upon the council to retract its “outlandish accusations.” The council has refused to do so.

Ryan says the minister responsible for the status of women, Mary Schryer, must now intervene. The Advisory Council exists through public funding yet they have now “violated the public trust” by repeatedly spreading manifest untruths.

To date Ms. Schyrer has not replied to appeals for intervention.

Meanwhile the dishonesty of pro-abortion allegations has been exposed by two contradictory public letters from Morgentaler clinic personnel. Volunteer Peggy Cooke claimed protesters were engaged in “threats, violence and throwing themselves in front of cars.” Yet two days later manager Simone Liebovitch stated that “peaceful'” protests should be moved a few feet way outside the NBRL office.

Peter Ryan comments, “Obviously if anything violent or dangerous were really occurring, it would hardly do to move a few feet away. The truth thus emerges: claims about violent or dangerous conduct are entirely baseless.”

Mr. Ryan said Ms. Liebovitch does raise a good question: “Why should protest take place in public places near her building and not elsewhere? My answer is this: Since the abortion clinic opened in Fredericton in 1994, more than 6,000 unborn lives have been ended. That's why I (as an individual) and others need to be there. It's where the little ones are dying. Someone needs to witness to God's undying love for each one.”

Truth-telling at a Pro-choice Clinic

One thing that really stood out in my counselor training at the pro-choice clinic was, don't ever make reference to the "baby." The truth is, that if you are pregnant, there is a baby growing inside. If that makes a woman stop and think about that -- well, she will be making a more informed choice.

-Leslie Forgie, former unplanned pregnancy counsellor, Letter to Editor, Winnipeg Free Press.

Apology Sought from Fredericton Police

The Fredericton City Police are being asked to apologize for unjustifiably arresting a pro-life woman after she protested outside the Morgentaler facility while displaying an image of a 10 week old aborted baby. Suzie Ryan was arrested in September 2006 and charged with the criminal act of “obscenity.” However, after reviewing the matter the Crown Prosecutor’s office dropped all charges in April, 2007.

In a letter of complaint on Mrs. Ryan’s behalf, Norm Bossé of the Saint John law firm Clarke Drummie, contends that the arrest represented “a serious over reaction on the part of the police force” to peaceful demonstrations outside the clinic. The letter refers to the use of “excessive force” against Mrs. Ryan, and to “distress she experienced over a period of seven months as a result of this arrest.”

Mr. Bossé notes the charges against his client were found to be without merit, and says in protesting peacefully Mrs. Ryan was exercising her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He expresses concern that there may be “systemic discrimination” within the police department against Mrs. Ryan and other pro-lifers, and asks if the arrest was not in fact an attempt to intimidate protesters.

A reply from the City Police is awaited.

Journalist Surprised by Reaction

Editor’s Note: In December The Ottawa Sun ran a series of article on abortion by journalist Ann Marie McQueen. Reflecting on reader reaction, she wrote:

I think people are most angry we raised the subject at all.

Which is sort of odd, don't you think? This is Canada, right? We can talk about anything. In yesterday's paper alone, the Sun featured stories about a program to stop domestic violence -- don't you sometimes wonder why we need progams to help men stop beating up and sometimes killing their wives? -- the brutal, random murder of a kindly 74-year-old man in Kitchener while he was handing out Christmas cards and a 35-year-old Brockville high school teacher charged with having sex with a female student.

Is it too taboo to devote a couple of pages to the anniversary of one of the country's most significant legal decisions, the Jan. 28, 1988 Supreme Court of Canada ruling overturning our country's abortion law?

When it comes to abortion, it seems, it is.

"I will tell you why no one is interested in talking a that is why," wrote one reader. "Whether to have an abortion or not is a private matter between a woman and her conscience and her doctor -- period." bout this: It is categorically none of their business, And that was from someone who went on to say "no one has the right, especially men, to tell women " what they can and cannot do with their bodies."

Tough words, from a pro-choicer.

In publishing the "Abortion" series, which ran from Saturday to Tuesday, we were expecting to be bombarded by letters from right-to-life organizations and individuals. After all, I was not exploring if abortion was right or wrong. I was checking in, taking the pulse. The law is, after all, the law.

What took me aback the most were letters from people who have deeply suffered from their abortions. From women, yes, but men too. I didn't expect to have people pour out their hearts full of pain to me, a stranger reminding them of the very procedure which scarred them so.

Before the feature, I had definitely discounted the effect abortion has on men.

"It is not just about the woman," one wrote. It seems that men are left out at this stage ... as if we did not exist," wrote one man. "Only after the child is born are expectations and responsibilities placed on us. I would have done anything to have kept my son or daughter."

People are so resilient in this world, they recover from unspeakable experiences. It frustrates me when people don't want to let their pain go. But perhaps, I'm reasoning these days, after reading letters about scars running decades deep, when the thing that is hurting you is the thing you chose to do, it's that much harder to get past it to a new normal.

Patient to Morgentaler: "I Don't Want to Do This to My baby."

VANCOUVER, January 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It's been more than thirty years, but social worker Vicky Green still vividly remembers her abortion experience with Dr. Henry Morgentaler, and she tells part of her story in the short film '1st Degree Morgentaler' by John S.C. Hetherington.

The short film juxtaposes shots of Dr. Morgentaler against the testimonial of Mrs. Green.

"We came to a stop light and I wanted to get out and run," says Mrs. Green, recalling her former boyfriend driving her to Dr. Morgentaler's first clinic in the east end of Montreal. But soon she found herself face to face with the doctor himself, "I was surprised it was Dr. Morgentaler doing the abortion."

After a brief counseling session she told him, "I don't want to do this to my baby." According to Mrs. Green Dr. Morgentaler replied, "It's not a baby." She says she cried the whole way through the abortion procedure.

Filmmaker’s site with information on how to obtain a DVD copy by donation: http://shoutlife.com/abortedartist

Freedom to discuss the 'choice'

That silence you hear doesn't mean the abortion question was settled

with the Morgentaler decision 20 years ago

By Brigitte Pellerin and Andrea Mrozek, Citizen Special, Jan. 28, 2008. Used with authors’ permission.

Young women are strenuously taught to prevent pregnancy. But if they don't manage that? Abortion is a valid and neutral choice, akin to whether one prefers an Americano or a latte.

I never tell a woman what to do with her body / But if she don't love children then we can't party.

That line from Flipsyde's 2006 single Happy Birthday may not be your idea of typical rap lyrics. It certainly isn't ours. But when rap artists start writing songs apologizing to their aborted children, songs that become international hits, you know something's up. Namely, that abortion is very far from being the settled issue politicians and advocates in Canada claim.

Perhaps you never heard of Flipsyde, a California hip-hop group. That's OK. We're a bit fuzzy on them, too. But Happy Birthday is haunting; it's a song that stays with you. It's strange that, with lyrics like "I paid for the murder before they determined the sex / Choosing our life over your life meant your death," it made the top 10 in Austria, Germany, Poland and Sweden. Stranger still that most Canadians are unaware of it. (You can find it easily on YouTube.)

The song's message may just be too out of sync with the kind of teaching young people have been receiving for 20 years, since the Supreme Court's Jan. 28, 1988, Morgentaler decision struck down Canada's abortion laws and removed all restrictions on abortion at any stage during a pregnancy. "Please accept my apologies / Wonder what you would have been."

Such melodrama over just another personal choice. Young women are strenuously taught to prevent pregnancy. But if they don't manage that? Abortion is a valid and neutral choice, akin to whether one prefers an Americano or a latte.

If abortion really were so settled, you wouldn't see research like the 2007 Environics poll showing 62 per cent of Canadians are uncomfortable with the status quo. Likewise, 34 per cent of women wouldn't tell pollsters they think an unborn baby ought to be protected from conception.

If abortion really were settled, politicians would not need to concern themselves with passing laws to keep pro-lifers away from abortion clinics. And university campuses would not need to go to the trouble of making things exceedingly difficult for their pro-life clubs. There would be no danger of their arguments persuading anyone.

Can it be that pro-choicers know their position is brittle? Right now, abortion is something most people avoid thinking about. Most Canadians don't know there are no restrictions on abortion in this country even at eight months. They don't know there's one abortion for every three live births. And those who call the issue "settled" don't want you to.

The reason is clear. The taking of a human life is not an easy topic, no matter how many euphemisms we use to camouflage the horrible truth of what the "choice" is. It is especially hard on the countless women who have had abortions. Many of them are left to face their loss alone, sad and silent.

That loss is very real and it's time to break the silence. What a pale and twisted shadow of compassion we offer women in this country: Terminate your baby and never talk about it. That silence, and that famous expression "the right to choose," protect a choice we won't name, a consensus that never was, a right that never materialized and a purported freedom that brings misery to woman and child alike.

Ah, you object, women in this country are not forced to have abortions. With rare exceptions it is true. But if you are a young college student, about to start an exciting career, planning a trip abroad, or perhaps facing family pressure because you were not supposed to get pregnant and you did -- what do you do? Abortion, you are told, magically wipes out your mistake. For many men and women, it is an extremely attractive option. Until afterwards when those Flipsyde lyrics hit too close to home.

"Happy birthday," Flipsyde sings, "make a wish." OK. We wish for a culture that defaults to life, not abortion. We wish for freedom to discuss what the choice is. We wish for a culture where women can be women, without being told to change their bodies and take their babies' lives. We wish for a world where rappers don't have to write "From the heavens to the womb to the heavens again/ From the endin' to the endin', never got to begin" with such a sad, heavy heart.

Brigitte Pellerin and Andrea Mrozek are founding members of www.ProWomanProLife.org.

An Unexpected Correlation: The Legacy of Abortion

From a “Breakpoint” radio commentary by Prison Fellowship Ministries president Mark Earley, Jan. 22, 2008

A woman——let's call her Caroline——was 92 years old. She was dying, in agony, but Caroline's pain was not physical. It was emotional. Caroline, you see, had been carrying a secret for more than 50 years: As a young woman, she had undergone two abortions, suffered terrible guilt all her life——and now, on her death-bed, afraid that God could not forgive her.

As her palliative-care nurse, Jean Echlin, writes, "At the end of her life she shared with me her agony over her lost babies . . . she felt that she had committed murder."

Caroline is not alone, as Echlin writes in Perspectives 2007, a publication of the De Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. Echlin also tells the story of a woman named Lydia, who was dying of cancer. Even with the use of a pain pump, which gave her steady doses of morphine, Lydia's pain did not abate.

"I asked her if her faith or prayer could be of any comfort," Echlin writes. "Lydia remained silent except for her moaning." But the next day she confided the truth. "I can't pray——God won't listen," Lydia said. "I killed a precious baby when I was 18 . . ." Lydia's abortion had taken place more than 40 years ago——and she was still grieving over it.

Caroline and Lydia are but two examples of what the Institute calls an "unexpected correlation" between abortion and pain-relief care. Dying women experience unresolved guilt and psychological pain related to their abortion——guilt and pain that stand in the way of a peaceful death. Their guilt is so great, Echlin says, that it impedes the effectiveness of their pain medication. Only when the abortion issue is resolved——when someone listens to them and assures them of God's forgiveness——is the pain medication made effective, and the women able to die peacefully.

This is dramatic testimony that abortion is not, as the abortion lobby claims, something women will "get over" in a week or two. It is evidence that we know inherently that we are made in the image of the God who gives life. When we do violence to that image——when we destroy life instead of nurturing it——it has a profound effect on our emotions, our psyche, and our souls.

WINNIPEG - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench reserved its decision yesterday in the case of a 84-year-old Orthodox Jewish man in hospital from whom doctors want to withdraw food and fluids and a ventilator. After a fall in 2003, Samuel Golubchuk suffered a brain injury but was still able to communicate. He was sent to Grace Hospital in Winnipeg in October after contracting pneumonia. Doctors have determined that he is not responding to their treatment and thus have decided to pull the feeding tube and ventilator even though he is still benefiting from them.In an affidavit, local Rabbi Y. Charytan, said Orthodox Jews believe "life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death."Charytan said he told hospital officials that if they remove life support from Golubchuk it "is a sin and not acceptable."

Samuel Golubchuk

Neil Kravetsky, the family's lawyer, said of the family that, "Their view is you don't hasten death, period. Where there is life there is life." He added: "To pull you physically off these machines, takes the patient's consent. To do otherwise, is murder. I really believe this. I don't see the difference if (a doctor) came in and put a pillow over his face."

A Grace General Hospital lawyer told the court that doctors "have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs." Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition agrees with the family position in relation to the feeding tube. If fluids and food are not provided he will die of dehydration and not his underlying medical condition. Schadenberg stated:

"We consider fluids and food to be basic care and not medical treatment and therefore obligatory until the provision of fluid and food stops providing any benefit." In this case it appears that his body is not shutting down and he is benefitting from the provision of fluid and food.

In early January, Golubchuk regained consciousness and appears to be improving. Although a hospital doctor treating Golubchuk wrote "Awoke" on his chart, the hospital did not disclose this to the court.

Meanwhile the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons has issued guidelines for doctors that says that doctors have the right - not patients or their families - to decide when life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn.

The ultimate decision, says Dr. Bill Pope, registrar of the College, lies with the physician, and there is no need to heed the wishes of patients or families. Doctors must "communicate" the decision with patients or their legal proxy "to make that situation more transparent," Pope said. "Nonetheless, doctors are permitted to make that decision."

Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Canadian Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said the guidelines are a reflection of the current trends in bioethics that designate some patients as persons and others as disposable, according to purely utilitarian criteria.

Schadenberg said, "If you have a child with a significant cognitive disability or a parent with dementia you cannot bring them to the hospital in Manitoba because it would be a death sentence.”

Schadenberg points to the fact that the Golubchuk case is still before the courts in Manitoba. "Clearly," he said, "this is an attempt to pressure the court to decide in their interests."

The recently released guidelines apply to all Manitoba physicians and come into effect February 1. Pope said if the judge rules in favour of a patient's family, the College will review their end-of-life regulations.

For years pro-lifers have waited for Hollywood to shake loose its pro-abortion mindset. Suddenly things have changed! In the last year no less than four movies have been released whose central character chooses life rather than abortion.

• The latest is Juno, an Oscar-nominated comedy featuring Halifax native Ellen Page as a wisecracking teen who gets pregnant after one-time sex. After an eventful pregnancy Juno gives her baby to an adoptive mother.

• Knocked Up is a ribald comedy about a young ambitious woman who becomes pregnant after a one-night stand. She resists pressure to abort. The development of her unborn baby is beautifully captured.

• Bella was a big hit at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival. It’s a heartwarming story of a former famous athlete turned chef at a New York City restaurant who helps a young waitress change her mind about having an abortion.

• Waitress is a comedy about a young woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy who nevertheless decides for life, with positive and life-changing results.

Editor’s Note: Readers should not see the above as movie endorsements.