Vol. 4, No. 2
September 2004

P.O. BOX 1988, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.,
C1A6K7

EDITORIALS

In recent issues of "The Interim", Canada's Life and Family Newspaper, the
use of the term "Pro-lifers" is widely used. Examples such as "Pro-lifers
eye big election gains", "Bush appoints pro-lifer to the UN", and
"Pro-lifers must become involved", put a label on the individual or
individuals that create an expectation of interest, motivation and action.
Some people are meant to be leaders in their field of endeavour. Some are
not comfortable with outwardly professing a commitment or purpose. Who or
what is a Pro-lifer?

            In the July 2004 Issue of "The Interim" Paul Tuns writes an
editorial article on the late President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.
In it he states that although Reagan as governor of California signed one of
the laws liberalizing abortion in his State he did change in the early 1970'
s to a pro-life stand. He committed himself to overturning the Roe vs. Wade
legislation in calling abortion "a wound in our national conscience".
Although Reagan was a staunch supporter and defender of life in his public
and private life he was never referred to as just a pro-lifer. Being
pro-life was part of him and did have significant influence on the way he
lived and the way he governed.

            Dean Rideout in his column "On Being Pro-life", for the June
2004 Issue of The Interim, states "Abortion needs to stop. Taking this
stance is called being pro-life." He states, "By choosing life, one
automatically places oneself in the minority." It becomes obvious that being
pro-life and professing it openly is not an easy or popular activity. We
know that many pro-lifers are activists, sometimes being jailed for their
beliefs. These are the vocal and self-professed leaders of the movement.

            Where do I stand as a pro-life person? Do I believe abortion is
wrong? If I believe that abortion is wrong, what can I do to prevent it? If
I believe abortion is wrong, how will I deliver a message of protest and to
whom? Do I have to be a self-proclaimed pro-lifer or belong to a pro- life
group?

Forming the conclusion that abortion is wrong takes us over the first
hurdle. Next, by vocalizing and asserting this belief to family or friends
when an appropriate time presents itself should cement the concept. Just by
delivering the message that the unborn need to be protected you will become
a pro-lifer.

While speaking out on pro-life issues such as abortion might seem like
speaking out against popular opinion or the status quo, it is necessary.
Every stance you take in support of the truth is important. Your belief in
life from conception to natural death is important to convey. Whether your
speaking out takes the form of prayer or the life message to family and
friends you are sowing the seed.

We live in a world of assumptions. The assumption being  - there is nothing

wrong with abortion. Until you make the statement, abortion is wrong, you
will be assumed to be part of the status quo.

              "Whose Right to Choose"
Within the present culture of our Canadian society it is assumed by many of
our politicians, lawmakers, and bureaucrats that abortion is a woman's right
to choose. This belief in pro-abortion is supported by many women's groups,
educators, and even some church leaders and groups. Recently, in our last
federal election, it was quite common to hear politicians voice their
support for a woman's "right to choose" abortion. This phrase has the
necessary ingredients to make it popular in mainstream Canada.

With the passing of the Charter of Rights by the Trudeau Government in the
70's, individual rights became sacred. It is very modern now to be liberal
and support all individual rights and freedoms with little concern of the
damage to society as a whole. The goal is now; if it feels good it has to be
good, or if it is good for me then it is good.

            With the sexual revolution now in the stages of evolution, all
forms of sexual behaviour are part of everyday life. It has been and is
being taught in sex education classes that the know how's of sex are most
important, so that, if children are aware of the whys and wherefore of
sexual behaviour they will be able to make informed decisions. One of these
many bits of required information is that abortion is one of the options in
birth control if an unwanted pregnancy should occur.

            Organizations such as Planned Parenthood were quick to proclaim
that since abortion is nothing more than a contraceptive option it should be
a right for women under their total reproductive health package. Since then,
abortion has become a necessary ingredient for the reproductive health for
women.

In 1988 in the Supreme Court of Canada the restrictions concerning the laws
regulating abortion were struck down because of their "procedural
 unfairness". Although politicians and other notables like to state that,
since we have no laws limiting abortion, it is now the right of every woman
to choose. This is not true. As there is no abortion law or regulations
there is no right to abortion either.

It was concluded by the Supreme Court Justices at the time (1988) that
parliament had the power and obligation to define the rights of the unborn.
As a result of the lack of parliamentary initiative and will, there is now
no protection for the unborn from the time of conception through the term of
pregnancy.

            What is meant by the right to choose? The freedoms granted to us
by our Constitution are certainly very important and have improved the
individual rights within our society. People are now assured that their
rights will have to be met by law.

The most basic and fundamental right of all is the right to exist. Once
created, a person has a predetermined right to live. When is a person
created? When one leaves the womb?

The right for all persons "to exist" has to be addressed. Children in the
womb are children in the infancy of their life. When it comes to choice
their choice has to be considered. Do these young persons' choices become
any less important than the choice of the State (China), a group of people
(Planned Parenthood) or  individuals (mothers)? A fundamental right to life
is being aborted and terminated by other rights considered more important.
The dialogue of the woman's right to choose has to be weighed against the
child's right to exist.

In this debate, it is not a question of restricting or curtailing the
inalienable right of any person, but why are the most indefensible persons
in our country not protected from their basic right to exist? For a country
or anyone in it to have the right to decide, for whatever reason, to
terminate the existence of any person, we all become less human.

                  back to Newsletter Index


THE IWK QUESTION


On the 17th 0f May, 2004, Mr. John Broderick, President of the Association
sent a letter to Mr. David Jeu, Managing Director of IWK Health Centre
Foundation.



Dear Mr. Jeu:

                At the annual general meeting of our Association in April of
this year the question was raised concerning the distribution of funds from
IWK fund-raisers. Over the past number of years IWK has raised a large
amount of money in support of our children's hospital, which we applaud.
However our members are concerned that a portion of the money raised is
going to support other hospital resources such as Grace Maternity.

                Some of our members have tried to obtain information
regarding the distribution of the funds raised under the banner of IWK "The
Sick Children's Hospital". Apparently after numerous inquiries no persons
contacted could confirm that in fact all of the money raised went to IWK.
The fund-raising promotional efforts directed toward aiding sick children
would lead one to believe that IWK "The Sick Children's Hospital" should be
the sole recipient.

                In view of the fact that the IWK now operates under the QEII
Health Sciences Centre hospital complex, the Association has a concern as to
the distribution of all charitable donations. Does the money go to the
hospital (QEII) for general revenue, does it go to a general account for
procurement of specific necessities like capital expenditures, or does it go
in support of Sick Children's Hospital only? Since the Grace Hospital is
presently one and the same hospital complex with the IWK and it is a fact
that abortions are performed at The Grace, are they recipients of any
designated IWK Sick Children's funding either directly or indirectly?

                We are requesting a clear statement from the IWK Foundation
addressing the above concern, so we can alleviate any objections our members
have regarding your fund distribution.



Respectfully yours,



John Broderick, President

P.E.I. Right to Life Association

copy:  David Fountain, Chairperson

IWK Health Centre Foundation



                A letter was received from Mr. Jeu

on July 28th, 2004. The following is his response:



Dear Mr. Broderick:

Further to your letter to me of May 17, 2004 please accept my apologies for
the delay in responding. Between pre- and post- Telethon related activities
and some other external changes, I failed to reply in a more timely manner.

  1.. The IWK Health Centre Foundation raises funds for the IWK Health
Centre only. This Health Centre includes what was known as the Halifax Grace
Maternity Hospital.
  2.. The IWK is not part of the Capital District Health Authority
(including the QEII Health Sciences Centre). The IWK is an independent
health facility governed by its own Board of Directors.
  3.. Funds raised by and through the IWK Health Centre Foundation are
directed to the IWK Health Centre for the following priorities.
    1.. Capital equipment
    2.. Capital renovations
    3.. Research
    4.. Board of Director fellowships
    5.. Clinical support programs such as Child Life, Spiritual Care and
Bilingual Services
  4.. The Health Centre requests an annual grant from the Foundation and
provides details on how the previous year's grant was spent and how the
grant will be spent in the year to follow. This is supported by
documentation from the Health Centre's auditors.
  5.. In addition, donors often designate their gifts to specific uses and
these restrictions are honoured in an accountable and transparent way.
  6.. Our Women's and Newborn Health program may receive funding from the
Foundation Directly or indirectly through a combination of the annual grant
and designated donations.
  7.. Reproductive health care, including access to the medically necessary
termination of a pregnancy, is fundamental to women's health.
In providing quality health care for all women, the IWK Health Centre stands
for appropriate access to medical necessary procedures such as terminations.
This position is in-line with the Mission, Vision and Values of the IWK
Health Centre, which embrace quality health care for the children, youth and
women of the Maritimes. The practices of the IWK Health Centre are
consistent with the services offered by like institutions across Canada.

The IWK performs termination of pregnancy when exceptional circumstances
occur, during a wanted pregnancy where there has been a diagnosis of a
profound health risk to the unborn child and/or mother.

         I trust the above answers your queries. Should you wish further
clarification, please contact me directly at (902) 470-8773 and/or the
Health Centre's Director of Public Relations, Kathryn London-Penny at (902)
470-7010.



Sincerely,

David Jeu

Managing Director

This concludes the correspondence with the IWK Health Centre. The Address of
the Foundation is 5850/5980 University Avenue, P.O. Box 3070, Halifax, NS,
B3J 3G9. Web Site is www.iwkfoundation.org.


        ---"President's Message"---

 

  by John Broderick

            Abortion is wrong, period. No "ifs', "ands', or "buts". A life
is a life is a life and it deserves protection. This is the time of the year
when the Pro-life movement makes every effort to get "the life" message out.

The Life Chain, our silent vigil and our public demonstration of our support
for "life" of the unborn will be held Sunday, October 3rd, 2004 from 2 - 3
p.m. beginning at the Cenotaph and extending out University Avenue.

Coincidently, or maybe not so coincidently, the march or walk for Breast
Cancer is on the same day. We hope many will get out to support both causes
as both are very worthy efforts and many prayers and much money are needed
for research into breast Cancer. We would like to invite the community
members to visit our office and view the "ABC Link" on the abortion breast
cancer connection - a very interesting and educational video to help
understanding breast cancer.

            As a result of a direction from our Annual Meeting, I wrote the
IWK Foundation asking if the funds raised by the IWK might get used for
abortions since the amalgamation of hospital facilities in Halifax. My
letter and their reply are printed for your information as part of this
newsletter.

            I suggest as a result of the reply received that all persons
donating to IWK direct your donations to the Children's Hospital so as not
to be seen as contributing to the abortion facility side of the IWK Health
Centre. (As per item #5 in the IWK letter)


                           "At the Office"
                       by Aukje Annema
Here it is September again and time to let our members know what is
happening. First of all October is our membership month. We appreciate all
the support we can get both  financially and by our volunteer service.
During the summer we usually don't have much going on. People on the Board
of Directors are usually in a couple times a week. We will welcome our
regular volunteers back and hopefully new ones with an orientation afternoon
with tea in early fall.

Our tentative Office Hours are as follows:          Tuesday       11:30 am -
4 pm

        Wednesday  10:00 am - 2 pm

         Thursday     11:00 am - 3 pm

Please do call if you are planning to come to the office, in case a
volunteer cannot make it.

            New pamphlets have been ordered for distribution to Churches,
offices, etc. You, as a member, could come and pick up and place them in
your churches and other available areas. We again have updated our PEI Right
To Life Pamphlet, which includes our mandate and other information.

            Take note elsewhere in this newsletter about NB Right To Life
court case against Dr. Morgentaler. If this case is lost, it will have major
implications for all of Canada and especially PEI.

Christmas Cards will be available by the end of October. We kindly ask for
your support with this project and promote them to your Church and community
groups. We have a mixed selection of religious cards of ten per pkg. 3 pkg
for $20 or 1 pkg for $7.50.

------------------------------------------------------

back to Newsletter Index


HAS THE ROLE OF UNICEF CHANGED?

At its inception in 1946, UNICEF was called the United Nations International
Children's Emergency Fund. In 1953 this name was shortened and changed to be
simply the United Nations International Children's Fund. Although shortened
the acronym UNICEF was retained.  An excellent history of this organization
is told by Maggie Black in Children First, the story of UNICEF, Past and
Present (Oxford:  Oxford University Press and UNICEF, 1996).

Since its inception, UNICEF has done an excellent job in meeting the needs
of children worldwide. It originally provided food to the hungry children in
war-torn nations. It did such a good job its mandate was changed by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in 1950 to care for the children in
the developing world. The need in these areas for food and health care was
becoming acute. In succeeding years it became involved in activities such as
combating epidemics and diseases and assisting in childbirths. In  1965 it
spent 43% of its budget on education. In the 1980's it expanded from project
interventions to working with the developing world in preventing child
mortality.

A few years ago the P.E.I. Right to Life produced a booklet by Millie
Trainor called "UNICEF Unmasked, The darker side of the UN Children's Fund".
This article was received at the time with some skepticism and disbelief.

In August of this year The Catholic Family and Human Right's Institute's
(C-FAM) released a comprehensive investigative report entitled "UNICEF,
Women or Children First?" This report is the third in a series of White
Papers produced by the International Organization Research Group pointing
out the growing influence of the radical feminist ideology on this UN
agency.

As this paper indicates, UNICEF priorities have changed since the departure
of Jim Grant and the arrival of Carol Bellamy in 1995. "Clear goals,
inexpensive interventions, and tangible results" ended.

The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal identifies the decline in UNICEF
healthcare interventions happened when President Bill Clinton, in 1995,
appointed a New York politician and activist, Carol Bellamy, to replace Jim
Grant as the Executive Director. With the pandemic of AIDS/HIV and the
conclusion by the Executive Director herself that "young people have sex,
something the world must acknowledge as a pre-condition to mounting
effective (HIV) prevention programs" the rules have changed. By using a
premise such as this UNICEF has moved from its primary goal of helping the
sick and malnourished to the promotion and expansion of sexual and
reproductive health services, including access to condoms.

In the September 2003 issue of the Lancet an organization of scientists
called the Belagio Study Group on Child Survival, write, "Although the child
survival revolution of the 1980's greatly reduced child mortality, the tasks
of preventing child deaths and addressing inequities remain unfinished. The
late Jim Grant, then director of UNICEF, launched the Child Survival
Revolution in 1982. Many countries made substantial progress in reducing
child mortality. Since the mid-1990s, however, this momentum has been lost,
and gains in child survival have slowed or been reversed." The authors
continue with a plea to UNICEF to return to Grant's approach, "Child
survival must be put back on the agenda so that this knowledge can be
translated into action, quickly. Strong and unified leadership was the
hallmark of the child survival revolution of the 1980s, and must be
re-established at international, national, and sub-national levels. We, a
group of scientists and public health managers, call on UNICEF and other UN
partners to act on behalf of children by putting child survival at the top
of their list of priorities."

The current five UNICEF spending program priorities of the organization are:
1) Girl's education; 2) Integrated early childhood development; 3)
Immunization "plus"; 4) Fighting HIV/AIDS; and 5) Improved protection from
violence, exploitation, abuse and discrimination. These priorities set out a
much more diversified and ambiguous set of parameters to meet the needs of
children in the developing nations.

The Report (C-Fam) establishes that UNICEF endorsed, aided and funded; a)
numerous documents that call for increased access to abortion, b) the
legalization of abortion, c) programs that include abortion services, d)
programs with goals such as "improving reproductive health services", and
"managing unwanted pregnancies".

In May 2002, The Washington Post reported a concern about a UNICEF funded
book and accompanying workbook depicting sexual experience and activities
(See Page 59, The Report). UNICEF is moving or has moved to embracing a
sexual revolution for children and a safe sex agenda. All this is done in a
neutral, valueless environment with no consideration of family involvement,
participation, or wishes.

These activity charges are not new. For years, concern and increasing
outrage has existed over the involvement of UNICEF in the production of
sexually explicit sexual education manuals for adolescents, especially in
places like Mexico and Latin America. UNICEF can also be seen as promoting
promiscuous sexual activities through the funding of such organizations as
loveLife, an Australian internet site.

            Our concern is that spending priorities have changed over the
years. No longer are nutrition and health care the main goals of the
organization. Austin Ruse from C-FAM states, "that UNICEF can and should be
saved from the ideologists who are using it to promote abortion, population
control and radical feminism to the detriment of its central mission,
helping children who are sick and hungry. The way to do it is by putting
pressure on UNICEF's pocket book. Until UNICEF is straightened out, it
should not receive funding from anyone."

The Report (C-FAM) is very positive about the need for UNICEF and the
necessity for it to get back on track. It calls upon donor nations to
replace the top leadership and to investigate the charges made by this
study. Changes are required in making education programs, in general, less
gender specific and more suited to both the needs of girls and boys, and
insisting the return to health care child survival and away from abortion
and the distribution of contraceptives to adolescents. There is also a need
for UNICEF to disassociate itself from organizations such as Planned
Parenthood, Marie Stopes International and to renounce any association with
the call for abortion or the legalization of abortion.

For more complete information, log on to the following internet addresses:
www.ncregister.com,

www.c-fam.org, (The International Organizations Research Group.

The United Nations Children's Fund

Women or Children First?)



back to Newsletter Index


MORGENTALER SUES

As mentioned in our last newsletter Dr. Henry Morgentaler is suing the N.B.
Government to fund abortion on demand in the province.

                Following is a speech made by Peter Ryan, President of the
N.B. Right to Life Association at a fund raising dinner in Fredericton:

"The focus of our Focus on Life Dinner is different this year. The proceeds
are primarily designated for the pro-life intervention in a very important
court case. As you know Henry Morgentaler has sued the province of New
Brunswick over its refusal to fund its private abortion clinic in
Fredericton. The funds we raise at this dinner, and similar dinners
elsewhere in the province, will enable the New Brunswick Right to Life to
plead the interests of innocent children and their mothers before the court.

            The pro-life cause has been making some notable gains in New
Brunswick. At the end of 2002 doctors at the Moncton Hospital stopped making
most abortions. During 2003 all of the doctors who have been performing
abortions at the Chalmers Hospital have stopped, except for one. There is
now only one individual performing abortion on demand within the provinces
hospital system.

            However, not all the news is good. There has been an upswing in
the numbers at the Morgentaler facility. Prior to 2003 they did 500 a year.
In 2003 they reported 602. At present women pay from $500 to $750 for an
abortion at Morgentaler's. But if Morgentaler succeeds in his lawsuit,
abortion on demand will be free of charge. Consequently, if he is successful
we can expect the numbers of abortions at his facility, already so very
high, will go even higher. And of course it is you and I as taxpayers who
will be footing the bill for the death of New Brunswick children.

            I want to underline that, in this case on Morgentaler vs New
Brunswick, much is at stake, not only for us in New Brunswick but for all of
Canada. Let me try to explain.

            Right now Canada is one of the few countries with no legal
protection whatever for children before birth. We protect trees, wildlife,
water, we protect our air from things like tobacco smoke- but when it comes
to the youngest members of the human species we have nothing to offer. But
as bad as the situation is, if Morgentaler wins it will become immeasurably
worse.

             Right now there is a legal vacuum in protecting the unborn. If
Morgentaler wins that vacuum will be filled by pro-abortion public policy
that targets any unwanted unborn child for extinction. Right now a woman is
legally free to abort her child, the law does not stop her. However, she
does not have a recognized right to do so, the law does not approve of
abortion. But if Morgentaler gets what he is seeking, the Supreme Court will
grant every woman, not only in New Brunswick but all of Canada, the legal
and constitutional right to abort an unwanted pregnancy on demand, and the
law will approve of every abortion.

            And that is not the end of it. By winning a constitutional right
to abortion on demand, Morgentaler hopes a court will take the next step and
say a woman also has the right to publicly funded abortion on demand,
whether in a private clinic or a hospital, whether in New Brunswick or any
other province.

            To show how much Morgentaler is pushing the envelope, let me
state things another way. Right now in Canada w have a legal vacuum
regarding abortion. The law is silent on abortion. That is not good, because
the law should protect the unborn, however the current situation is not
entirely bad. Right now, Parliament could, if it wanted to, pass a law to
protect the unborn from abortion. And that is a good thing, at least we can
hop that someday -maybe after some federal election! - there will be enough
integrity and good will among MP's that they will move to protect our
country's youngest children.

            However, if Henry Morgentaler wins a constitutional right to
abortion, Parliament will no longer be free to pass a law against abortion,
it would be considered a violation of the highest law in the land, the
Charter of Rights. Our democratic freedom to protect human life before birth
would thus be curtailed.

            Similarly, if Morgentaler wins, the legal freedoms of our
provincial governments to protect the unborn in some way will be overturned.
Right now many provincial governments do fund abortion on demand, especially
the ones performed in hospitals. That is regrettable. But the point I want
to make is that right now provinces are under no legal obligation to pay for
abortions, either in hospitals or in private clinics.  They are free not to
fund abortions. But if Morgentaler wins they will lose that freedom. They
will have no choice but to fund abortion on demand in private clinics and
hospitals.

            The public is strongly opposed to funding abortion on demand. A
2003 Leger poll showed that only 25% of Canadians support publics funding
for abortion on demand. 68% are either totally opposed to funding abortion,
or only support funding in medical emergencies like danger to a mother's
life or rape. But if Morgentaler wins, the public will not matter. Whether
they like it or not, taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortion on demand.

            At present New Brunswick is the only province that has a private
abortion clinic that does not receive one cent of public funding. That,
ladies and gentleman, is a very good thing, and well worth preserving, well
worth fighting for! Three other provinces have no abortion clinic. Three
other provinces do have abortion clinics that are partially funded by the
public. New Brunswick is the only that does have a clinic yet its provincial
government refuses to use any public funds for that purpose.

Of course, it is precisely because New Brunswick is such a holdout, that
Henry Morgentaler has launched a lawsuit here. We are in his sights, we are
the prize he wants above all, and he is willing to fight the Province all
the way to the Supreme court of Canada. If he eliminates his biggest
opposition, namely us, he will win an ultimate victory against this country'
s children and mothers. Please God, let it not be so.

We are happy that our provincial government has steadfastly refused to fund
the Morgentaler facility in Fredericton. We are likewise pleased that the
government is resolved to fighting Morgentaler's lawsuit.

At the same time we believe that the legal arguments that the province tends
to use against Morgentaler do not cover all the bases that need to be
covered. The Province, for example, does not plan to argue on behalf of the
legal right to life of children before birth. Nor does it plan to argue that
abortions performed on demand at the Morgentaler facility are in any way
harmful to women.

It is for such reasons that a coalition of pro-life groups was formed and
made application to intervene in this court case. So that all the bases
would be covered. So that the court would hear, for example, the wealth of
scientific evidence about the humanity of children in the womb. So they
could also hear the wealth of evidence about how abortion medially harms
mothers. There are hundreds of studies to show the serious health risks from
abortion. We also have 47 women who have had abortions and have agreed to
testify how they were harmed by it. Several were former clients of
Morgentaler.

The Coalition that wishes to intervene in this court case is called the
Coalition for Life and Health. New Brunswick Right to Life is the lead
member of the coalition. But there are 14 other groups involved. They
include: (list)

On March 24, Judge David Russell of the Court of Queen's Bench heard the
Coalition's application to join the Morgentaler case as an intervener.
Morgentaler's lawyer, of course, opposed our application they do not want
the court to hear our arguments or evidence. The Province does not oppose
our application, but neither did they support it, which we found
disappointing since basically we want to bolster the position the Province
is taking.

            In April we were further disappointed, to say the least, when
Judge Russell issued his ruling against our application. We believe His
Honour made several errors in law. For that reason the Coalition has
appealed his ruling to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. I expect our
appeal will be heard no earlier than this fall. Meanwhile the whole court
case is put on hold pending a resolution of who the competing parties will
be. We maintain a fervent hope that the Coalition of Life and Health will be
one of these parties.

            Once it is decided who all the parties will be, a trial will
take place at which time the parties may call witnesses as well as
presenting legal arguments. The court then rule for or against Morgentaler.
After that there will likely be an appeal by the losing side to the New
Brunswick Court of Appeal. After that Court rules, the losing side will
likely then appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the issue will be
decided once and for all. It could take a number of years before the final
outcome. But that outcome is very important.

            If Morgentaler wins, it is a disaster for the pro-life cause in
all of Canada. On the other hand, if he loses it will be a significant
victory for us. If the Court decides that New Brunswick is free not to fund
its private abortion clinics, that is good news not only for New Brunswick
but for other provincial governments who might then be encouraged to defund
the clinics they are now funding.

We ask for continuing prayers in the months ahead, that the outcome will be
favorable for the unborn. We especially ask you to pray that our pro-life
Coalition will be allowed to intervene in this case, so that the unborn and
their mothers will have a voice.

As you can imagine there are significant costs associated with a legal
intervention like this. We have already spent close to $25,000 to date, and
there will be further substantial costs just to complete our intervention
application before the Court of Appeal. Then if the application is
successful, the costs will be very substantial indeed. To go all the way to
the Supreme Court would easily cost a further $100,000. Even if we lose out
current application before Court of Appeal, we would have an opportunity for
another application to intervene at the appeal stage of the case that
follows the forthcoming trial. I know it may be complicated for you to
understand all the stages that are involved in a lawsuit like this. I guess
the point I am trying to make is that we very much can use any donations to
our Legal Defense Fund.

The cost of fighting Henry Morgentaler in court is significant. But some
legal battles are worth making a financial sacrifice for. When it comes to
defending the lives of New Brunswick and Canadian Children, we strongly
believe that the sacrifice is not too great."


back to Newsletter Index


LIFE CHAIN
- Come and participate in the Annual International Life Chain. A
peaceful, silent public witness, standing for one hour, praying for our
nation and for the end of abortion.  Commencing at the Cenotaph (University
and Grafton) in Charlottetown on Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 2p.m. It is the
intention to line out University Avenue from the Cenotaph to the Dairy
Queen. Placards will be available at the Cenotaph, Euston Street Corner, and
at the Royal Bank. Reception will follow at the Basilica Recreation Centre.


Our annual membership drive starts in October. Enclosed is a form for your
renewal. If you have paid in this year please disregard the notice. Thank
you for your continued support.

back to Newsletter Index