Canada’s Feds Paying Full Maternity Benefits After Abortion

This is a reprint of an article by Patrick B. Craine,
Fri Sep 02, 2011 14:39 EST. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, surely we can all agree that this is absolutely ludicrous.

OTTAWA, Ontario, September 2, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life Canadians have complained for years that they are forced to pay for the direct killing of unborn children through the country’s health system. It turns out they are also paying for abortive mothers to get full maternity benefits.

Canada’s employment insurance guidelines reveal that a woman who aborts her child after 19 weeks gestation is eligible to receive 17 weeks of maternity leave, the same as a mother who gives birth. For an abortion occurring before 19 weeks gestation, the woman can collect sick leave for the same length of time.

“The whole situation is pretty ludicrous,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life Coalition. “Why should you pay for somebody killing their child, and then expect to pay for benefits if the child is no longer there?”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation first highlighted this federal policy in 2008. John Williamson, CTF’s executive director, told The Interim that maternity benefits were established by an Act of Parliament with the intention of allowing parents bonding time with their newborn child.

He said extending these benefits to a woman who aborted her child is “obscene” and a “perversion of the EI system.”

Campagne Quebec-Vie, the Quebec division of Campaign Life Coalition, has recently highlighted that women are also given maternity benefits under the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan.

“How is it fair that I am being asked, along with other taxpayers of good will, to not only pay for the assassination of a ‘less than perfect’ child, but that I am also paying for several months’ ‘maternity leave’?” asked Georges Buscemi, CQV’s president.

Buscemi warned Americans that they could be facing similar policies if President Barack Obama, the country’s most pro-abortion head-of-state in history, is elected a second time. “Not only is this the kind of nonsense that greatly in-debts states, these socialist policies are nothing but a kind of barbarism hidden under a cloak of charity and compassion. These kinds of policies are both expensive and evil,” said Buscemi.

Federal government regulations note that a woman who obtained an abortion would not be eligible for parental leave, which is above and beyond maternity leave, “since the employee must have actual care and custody of a newborn child.”

Douglas said abortion is not a “maternal” act and so should not warrant any maternity benefits. “Families are not taking care of their children if they’re eliminating them,” she said. “That’s not caring for children, that’s eliminating children. So it’s not worthy of benefits for sure.”

LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the office of Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Diane Finley by press time.


Contact Information:

Hon. Diane Finley
Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 996-4974
Fax: (613) 996-9749
E-mail: diane.finley@parl.gc.ca

Related Articles:
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame
The "A" Word
Unborn Victims of Crime Act

The Issue That Just Won't Go Away

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the information given below was such a good snapshot of the division in our culture that it needed to be shared. I highly encourage you to check out Lifesite's web-site for related stories. There are many which you will rarely, if ever hear covered in the national media.

For example, in Canada we have the Conservative government making fools of themselves by trying to submit another bill in place of Jake Epp's "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act. Epp is a Conservative who refuses to bend to political correctness and his own party is trying to pull the carpet out from under him. We also have numerous winners of the Order of Canada who are turning in their medals in protest over the naming of abortionist Henry Morgantaler to their ranks.

This issue is the elephant in the room that the media will not deal with rationally. Science has now clearly proven that a new life is formed from the moment of conception. Doctors are now doing surgery on babies in the womb at early gestation to save their lives while doctors in another part of the hospital are killing babies who are older. How do we rationalize this? We just don't talk about it and hope it all goes away.

Let me know what you think of the article.

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion

By Tim WaggonerWASHINGTON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)

"Catholic" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blatantly fallacious remarks on August 24 regarding the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion have triggered a tidal wave of criticisms from clergymen, congressmen and Catholics nationwide.Responding to a question from NBC's Meet the Press moderator Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, Pelsosi appealed to her extensive research on the issue as well as her "ardent" Catholic faith to claim that, "I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins." She asserted that "over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition," in attempt to support her pro-abortion and pro-contraception stance. Watch the full interview here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUSt7dfj5I)

The response to Pelosi's statements has been intense as Catholic leaders across America are wondering how a "Catholic" with a self-proclaimed broad understanding of the Catholic Church's position on human life could have overseen the straightforward teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl quoted this teaching (section 2270-2271 of the CCC) in a letter responding to Pelosi's comments: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Catechism, 2270-2271)

Rebuking her, Archbishop Wuerl said that, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion." For the full letter see: (http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=569&Year=2008)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, also issued a release on Pelosi's remarks, explaining that Pelosi's belief that a woman has the "right to choose" to end her baby's life contradicts Catholic teaching and addressing her comments suggesting the Catholic Church has been polarized on the issue over the course of history.None of the early Fathers "diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong," said Archbishop Chaput. "Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith," he added.

For the full letter see: (http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf)

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine also wrote a response letter.After mentioning the fact that scientists are certain that "a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization," the bishops wrote, "In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life." For the full letter see: (http://www.usccb.org/)

Edward Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York is another Church leader that has stepped up to defend the faith of his people. Please see upcoming separate LifeSiteNews.com coverage on his comments.It was not only the leaders of the Church that felt the need to correct Pelosi. Ten congressmen have sent Pelosi a letter asking her to publicly rectify her misrepresentation of Catholic teachings.

"As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you (Pelosi) would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority," said the congressmen. "Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error." "To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church's actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life," concluded their letter, which contained the following signatures.

Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI)

Hon. Steve Chabot (OH)

Hon. Virginia Foxx (NC)

Hon. Phil Gingrey (GA)

Hon. Peter King (NY)

Hon. Steve King (IA)

Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA)

Hon. Devin Nunes (CA)

Hon. John Sullivan (OK)

Hon. Patrick Tiberi (OH)

See the full letter from the congressmen here: (http://www.americanpapist.com/Pelosi%20Letter.pdf)

Faith-based Schools and Government Dollars

I decided to weigh in on this debate since it seems to be getting so much media play time during this Ontario election campaign. For those of you still unaware, John Tory, the Ontario Conservative leader has promised that, if elected, he will extend full funding to all faith-based groups. Currently, that benefit is enjoyed only by the Catholics.

I'm of two minds on this. I have three boys and we've used different approaches to educating them. We've done homeschooling, Christian school and the public school system. Each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses. Different children would benefit more from one than another.

My biggest issue with most media commentary on this issue is the lack of fairness and the hysterical reaction to faith-based schooling. Dalton McGuinty has raised fears that full funding will lead to a ghettoizing of Ontario, leaving children unable to function in a multi-cultural environment. Of course, he is a product of the fully funded Catholic system and his family actively participates as well. His position is hypocritical in the extreme. Other provinces have demonstrated that the social fabric can withstand extending funding to others. It appears that the knee-jerk reaction of many is to cast this as a public vs. private school war which must be won at all costs. Both can obviously survive and probably be the better for the process.

At the heart of this issue is fairness. Why should the Catholics have full funding and not other religious groups? Even the United Nations has ruled this discriminatory and prejudicial. Parents who choose to have their children in a non-Catholic faith-based school must currently pay above and beyond their taxes to do so.

In my opinion a better option is the school charter system for all schools. Bring a healthy dose of competition into the educational system. Under this model, each parent receives a voucher for each school-aged student. That voucher can be used to purchase enrollment at any school. This allows for schools to specialize while maintaining a core curriculum. It would allow for gifted students to flourish while ensuring that no student gets left behind.

At the very least, parents of students in faith-based private schools ought to have a tax deuction equivalent to their fair share of the education tax in order to offset the tuition they pay out of pocket. But regardless, let's end this fear-mongering that the sky is going to fall if we simply level the playing field for all students.

Change Your World

I've been thinking about politics this week. I watched part of President Bush's "State of the Union" address last night; I was reading about Stephen Harper's reflections on his first year as Prime Minister of Canada today, and I just finished reading about William Wilberforce (shown at right).

I guess I tend to be an idealist. I like to think that there are people who mean what they say and live their lives with integrity. I want to believe that people, ordinary people who care, can make a difference. Yet what I so often see is the politics of compromise and posturing for the photo-op. Is it possible today to rise above partisan politics and actually just do the right thing on a consistent basis?

That's why I included William Wilberforce. He served in the British Parliament in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and made as profound an impact as anyone in his time. He was born to privilege and position and yet risked both by embracing unpopular causes, simply because he believed in them. Along with an, at first, small group of sympathizers, Wilberforce took on the most powerful cartel in the British Empire in defence of the weakest.

A lifetime of labour enabled him to see not only the end of the slave trade in the British Empire, but the advancement of many worthy causes that ultimately changed the course of history. What causes a man to work tirelessly for almost forty years in parliament? It certainly wasn't the money - he already had that. In fact, during difficult times for the country, he gave away, in at least one year, more than he earned in order to help relieve the suffering.

Something had shifted in the psyche of this man who was elected at the ripe old age of 21. An old schoolmaster of Wilberforce's joined him on a trip to the continent and, over the course of time, led him to commit himself to the study of the Bible. Later that year he sought counsel from none other than John Newton, author of "Amazing Grace," and somewhere in those events he committed himself to follow Christ, whatever the cost.

He saw the corruption in politics, which he'd seen first hand, he'd witnessed the vulgarities of British society. (Some estimates claimed that up to 1 in 4 women in London at the time were engaged in prostitution. One-eighth of the deaths in London were blamed on excessive drinking. Animals were tortured for entertainment and frequent executions drew huge crowds.) He wrote in his journal: "Almighty God has set before me two great objectives, the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners."

His story is inspiring and, thankfully, will be told in a movie being released soon called appropriately "Amazing Grace."

Here's the question. What are the causes today which are worthy of a life-long commitment? What is it that can make your eyes shine with passion? Wilberforce, with his Biblical worldview, believed that he could succeed in spite of all of the odds because it was God Himself who had given him this task. The lives of thousands and the destiny of millions was changed for the better because of it.

Perhaps you and I were not born to privilege like Wilberforce. We may not carry the same influence as he did. Yet each of us can affect the lives of those around us in a positive way if we will.

That's what I believe that the church is: it's a community of people who have decided to follow Jesus Christ - wherever He leads. Jesus was a revolutionary who refused to use physical force, but rather, the power of truth. The church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). In spite of its failings - and they have been many and well-documented - God changes the world through the transformed lives of ordinary men and women.

I believe that there is a generation of people who are looking for something or someone to believe in. Are you tired of being let down and disappointed? Take this challenge. Search for the Christ that Wilberforce found and see what that does for your perspective!

Stephane Dion's Big Adventure

So, it looks like all of the prognosticators and seers of the future missed the boat. The little guy from Quebec (Oh, Oh!) has surprised everyone with an upset win in the Liberal leadership race. There will be no "Rae days" for Canada and Iggy and Stephen Harper will not have to wrestle over who gets to be the conservative. Instead, it appears that the environment will be front and center in the next general election if Mr. Dion has his way.

Will this be a new day for the Liberals? Can they put the scandals and infighting of the past behind them? Will Dion be electable West of the Ontario/Manitoba border? Time will tell but now the clock is ticking on the next election.

It's an interesting time in Canadian politics. We now have a Conservative minority government which appears willing to take principled stands on issues such as human rights and yet is terrified of allowing their own MPs to comment on moral issues. Bloggers are even now leading a charge in an attempt to force them to declare themselves on abortion and other contentious issues.

There's no such ambivalence from the Liberal camp. With very few exceptions their party is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-marijuana, etc... They do live up their name, don't they?

The problem that many have with politics in Canada is that, in spite of all of the media hand-wringing about the Liberals, our real party choices seem to start in the Center and move Left from there. There are policy differences, but not on many of the issues which resonate with moral conservatives. For us, it appears that the long walk through the political wilderness will continue for the foreseeable future.

Stem Cell Research & The Media

You likely haven't read it in any of the major newspapers or seen it covered by the CBC, ABC, CBS, Global, CTV, etc..., but there's been a major breakthrough in stem cell research. According to an article by Gudrun Schultz, Scientists in Britain have grown a human liver from stem cells taken from blood from an umbilical cord. In other words, no embryo had to be destroyed; no ethical lines had to be crossed. It was simply good science.

You won't have heard this story likely because there seems to be a very real media bias as regards stem cell research in favor of the mantra that embryonic stem cells provide the "best hope" for scientific breakthroughs. You've likely seen video or heard audio clips of Michael J. Fox's impassioned plea for the passage of a bill that would allow for the expansion of this type of research in order to treat diseases like Parkinson's, from which he suffers. Michael's sincerity is obvious, which makes it all the more important to look at the facts.

Regardless of why those embryos were created - another debate entirely - how do you morally justify their destruction when other alternatives are available? Perhaps the question of the day would be this - why would the mainstream media ignore a scientific breakthrough of this magnitude? This "eureka" type of discovery was covered in London's Daily Mail. These scientists foresee a day when "cord blood from millions of babies born each year is banked, creating a world-wide donor register for liver transplant and dialysis."

Rush Limbaugh's crude accusation that Michael J. Fox was "acting" and exaggerating the effects of his illness are simply a distraction from the real issue: is it a good idea to open a door to questionable scientific practices? My answer is a firm no! Just because we can do something does not mean that we ought to; especially when there is a safe and non-destructive alternative.

According to Schultz: "Research using embryonic stem cells is highly controversial because it requires the destruction of embryos in order to 'harvest' the cells. Further, to this date there has been no success in using embryonic cells to treat any disease or disorder. In contrast, the use of adult stem cells or of cells harvested from umbilical cord blood shortly after the birth of a baby have already been used successfully to treat multiple conditions, including spinal injury and blindness."

The point is this: while Michael J. Fox's condition does tug on the heart strings, it is not a valid argument. Emotion should not - cannot - be allowed to override sound reasoning. One of society's main responsibilities is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. In order to do that we must preserve a healthy respect for human life. Embryos ought not to be created to be destroyed; the U.S. should not open that door, and Canada should not have.

During the reign of our previous Liberal government, Bill C-6 was passed, allowing research on frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization (IVF) but no longer wanted by the donors. The language of the bill was clear that testing was limited to these embryos. However, already the line has blurred and IVF donors are now being asked to consent to allowing their embryos to be harvested for research - exactly the type of abuse that was feared in the first place. The argument that such legal changes are a "slippery slope" is not mere conjecture, it's history, as Rory Leishman argues in his recent article.

Our culture needs to move off of its trendy pragmatism, and look once again at a moral framework that protects those who are the most vulnerable. We need to stop being lazy intellectually and work through the implications of the decisions we make. The consequences of doing otherwise are frightening indeed.

Christians Need Not Apply

It's been fairly obvious for quite some time now that politics is a dangerous profession for practicing Christians in Canada. Not only is the mainstream media quick to pull out the "scary" label, but opposition benches seem to feel there's no line they shouldn't cross. A recent article by John-Henry Westen bears this out.

The latest example has to do with Darrel Reid, the newly appointed Chief of Staff to Environment Minister, Rona Ambrose. Upon hearing of his appointment, Bill Graham, leader of the Liberal Party declared the decision an "affront to democracy." What was Mr. Reid's crime? Was he a child-abuser, a thief, perhaps he stole someone else's identity? No, his crime was that he was formerly head of the Canadian branch of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization with American roots.

While Pat O'Brien, a former Liberal M.P., is quoted as being highly critical of the Liberals, it seems that all of the Canadian mainstream parties have, at least, made the public expression of Christian values taboo among their candidates or M.P.s. I find it amazing that, in a culture that prides itself on its diversity and tolerance there is such blatant discrimination and even hostility to Christians in public life. Witness the vilification of Stockwell Day who, while certainly not perfect, was not as bad as the press or the opposition made him out to be.

The assumption seems to be that Christian values somehow impair the judgment of a politician, while an irreligious person or a non-practising Christian somehow is free from pre-conceived biases. The obvious fact is that we each have a worldview - a lens through which we interpret events and which informs our decisions. The secularizing of our political scene has simply deprived us of the benefit of informed debate.

We wonder why we see such a frightening decline in the moral judgment of our youth, our politicians, our leaders in general. Somehow we find ourselves unable, or unwilling to connect the dots. The ever-quotable C. S. Lewis wrote, "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

Honestly, would we rather be lead by men and women who feel we will one day be held accountable for our choices, or to those who believe that the only thing we need to fear is being caught? It seems to me that, while there are moral atheists, having someone with a Biblically informed worldview would, and should, add a lot to the tone of public debate. Chew on it.