Beauty from Ashes, by Stephanie Gray

     “Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller

     Two and a half years ago, back when I lived in Brampton, Ontario, I watched my then-parish burn to the ground.  Having since moved home to Vancouver, the last time I “saw” St. Elias it was ashes scattered upon sacred ground.  But last week, 31 months later, I visited Ontario and became witness to charred remains replaced by a new—and dare I say even better—towering place of worship, with copper domes reflecting the afternoon sunlight, set amidst a soft blue sky, standing majestic and tall.  Beauty from ashes. 

     I remember the sobs and devastation produced as the fiery inferno took over the building and crushed spirits, but I also saw a community rise from this loss with a conviction that it would overcome and rebuild—and it did.  This trial, and ultimate triumph, has become a metaphor for my own times of difficulty, remembering, as blind and deaf woman Helen Keller once remarked, “Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it.”  Beauty from ashes.

     Those words would be brought to life again only a few days later when, after visiting the new St. Elias, I flew to Guatemala to speak at the World Pro-Life Congress.  In the course of my 5-day visit I continually encountered beauty from ashes in the lived experiences of the people I met.

     Within an hour of my plane landing, one of my new Guatemalan friends, Gabby, took me on an unexpected and amazing adventure.  When I happened to ask her if she heard of Fr. Michael who ran Valley of the Angels Orphanage, a ministry I had only been told about days before while speaking in Ontario, she excitedly responded that she knew him and would take me there.  Thirty minutes later she was driving me up a winding mountain to meet a joyful Franciscan priest who authentically lives spiritual fatherhood by feeding, housing, and educating poor children—over 200, in fact!  Yes, there is poverty in Guatemala, but I also saw the overcoming of it.

     Then there was Gabby, the woman who picked me up at the airport.  She spends her time helping women in crisis, not only through volunteering at a counselling center, but also connecting women to a home for pregnant girls should they need material support to carry through with their pregnancies.  Suffering yes—but again, the overcoming of it.

     The next day I gave a presentation to 75 young volunteers of the Congress alongside another woman, Lianna Rebolledo.  Unlike me, Lianna can speak Spanish so her presentation to the bilingual audience was not understood by me.  But that evening we shared dinner together in our hotel’s restaurant and I was profoundly touched as I learned this inspiring and resilient woman’s journey first-hand.  Lianna and I are one year apart in age but she already has a 25-year-old daughter.  How could this be if 25 years ago we were 12 and 11 years old, respectively?  I then learned Lianna’s story—she was kidnapped at age 12, raped, and became pregnant.  As it says on her website,

     “She never thought about aborting her daughter. Lianna is survivor of 3 suicide attempts and is now a Defender of Life, with a specific mission: to inspire the world…She not only shares a testimony, but also a message of hope for many people, especially women all over the world who are in high-risk situations to love life grounded in faith.  ‘After my pregnancy due to rape, two lives were saved; I saved my daughter’s life and she saved mine.’”

     Suffering.  And the overcoming of it.

     The next day I met another presenter who is exactly my age, Patricia Sandoval.  We quickly connected and excitedly talked about our lives of travelling and speaking.  She had just heard me present to a panel so she told me why she was there to present: She had 3 abortions, used to work at Planned Parenthood, and for 3 years became a drug addict living on the streets.  Now she travels the world to tell others of God’s mercy.  Particularly poignant was when she told me this (which is also posted on her website in more detail here):

     “One day, my drug-addicted boyfriend and I got into an argument, and he kicked me out. I was left completely alone and abandoned, without food, water, friends, family, or drugs. I sat for hours on the sidewalk, curled into a fetal position, sobbing. I had nothing. I had sunk to the lowest level of my life.

      “It was then that I experienced the presence of God watching me. I lifted up my head and crying, I said to Him: ‘You are all that I have. I don't know how I got to this point. I thank you for my beautiful childhood and family, which You gave to me. I'm so sorry!’ I had barely finished speaking when a young woman my age, twenty-two, named Bonnie, knelt down, embraced me from behind, and said, ‘Jesus loves you.’ I looked up at her confused, and she smiled back and said, ‘I am the waitress at the restaurant across the street. I was working when God said to me: 'Put down your notepad, look out that window, and tell that young lady who is sitting on the curb that even if her mother or father should abandon her, I will never abandon or forsake her. I will be with her until the end of time.’ I couldn't believe that God had responded to my prayer so immediately! Bonnie took me into her restaurant and with a sweet smile, asked me what I'd like to eat. Then she drove me home.”

     Suffering. And the overcoming of it.

     Over the past 9 days, the people I met and the encounters I experienced have been nothing short of inspiring.  As I reflect on it all, I am reminded of the words of Anne Frank, a girl whose young life would be extinguished by the horror of the Holocaust but whose legacy has survived for decades since:

     “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”  Indeed, Anne, we all can make beauty from ashes.

If We Place Ourselves in the Margins, We Will Be Marginalized, by Stephanie Gray

     One of my friends, a graduate of medical school now doing his residency, sent me an article about ethicists who recently suggested that “conscientious objectors” not be allowed to practice medicine.  These ethicists are bold.  They propose “removing a right to conscientious objection” and suggest “selecting candidates into relevant medical specialities or general practice who do not have objections.”  In short, in such a world it seems pro-life doctors like many of my friends would be pushed out of the practice of medicine—or would they?

     As I have written before here and here, I am not a fan of over-emphasizing “conscience” when objecting to objectionable actions.  There are solid scientific and human rights-based reasons for doctors to object to practices such as abortion, assisted suicide, and contraception.  But if the physicians who won’t participate in these behaviors give the reason of “my religion” or “my conscience,” the effect is to set themselves apart.  It sounds like they don’t have good medical reasons for their claims, and as a result, it sounds like the physician is doing something inconsistent with the nature of medicine.  It places such medical professionals in the margins—and in doing so, results in them being marginalized.

     It ought not be that way.  Instead, I propose such physicians (and nurses, etc.) show how their pro-life views align with pre-existing standards within the medical community, scientific research, and widely accepted human rights doctrines.  It can be explained like this:

• Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Code of Ethics Policy 1: “Consider first the well-being of the patient.”

     When there are published studies showing how abortion harms women, it can be argued abortion does not promote the pregnant patient’s well-being.

     When there is undisputed scientific evidence that human development begins at fertilization and that abortion kills such a human, it can be argued abortion does not promote the pre-born patient’s well-being.

     When a cancer patient is in excruciating physical pain because of, as a palliative care physician discovered, a broken relationship with her daughter, euthanasia won’t solve the underlying emotional turmoil (that happened to manifest physically).  In other words, we see in this case that assisted suicide does not support the patient’s well-being.  Instead, helping heal a fractured relationship does.

     As we learned from teens in Attawapiskat and Woodstock Ontario, as well as actor Robin Williams’ suicide, to consider the well-being of a patient is to identify the underlying motivations suffering people have to end their lives, and then eliminate the problem rather than the person.  So shouldn’t we do that with any request for suicide?

• CMA Code of Ethics Policy 3: “Provide for appropriate care for your patient, even when cure is no longer possible, including physical comfort and spiritual and psychosocial support.”

     Assisted suicide is incongruent with this policy because inflicting death takes away the very person the physician is responsible to provide comfort, spiritual, and psychosocial support for.  “Kill” has a fundamentally different meaning from “care.”  Whereas the former ends life, the latter improves and comforts life.

• CMA Code of Ethics Policy 9: “Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.”

     As I wrote here and here, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is actually anti-abortion.  Moreover, the United Nations has adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that in countries where the death penalty is permitted, “Sentence of death …shall not be carried out on pregnant women.” 

     If giving capital punishment to a guilty pregnant woman would mean killing an innocent child, the UN says you simply must not do it.  Since the death penalty violates a pre-born child’s right to life, wouldn’t abortion as well?

• CMA Code of Ethics Policy 14: “Take all reasonable steps to prevent harm to patients.”

     In light of the permanent, irreversible, life-ending effects of assisted suicide, abortion, and even abortifacient birth control, these undoubtedly cause harm to patients.

     Consider the case of Jeannette Hall.  Living with cancer in a state, Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, she opted to end her life.  Her physician informed her that her cancer was treatable and she had good prospects but she still wanted to kill herself, knowing that if she did not pursue treatment she was given an estimate of 6 months left to live.  Well she’s alive now, 15 years later, because her physician, wanting to take reasonable steps to prevent her harm, asked her how her son would feel about her plan.  Almost two decades later she said to her doctor, “You saved my life.”

     Had the physician acted like a robotic automaton and doled out assisted suicide instead of asking questions to help her find meaning and purpose in her life, Jeannette Hall, who is now grateful to be alive, would have experienced the irreversible harm of a life-ending act.

     Or take the case of a gynecologist who recently heard me give a presentation.  He shared that a patient of his had previously had two miscarriages and now on her third pregnancy, she came to him requesting an abortion.  Instead of simply responding to her request, he asked her a question: “How did the miscarriages impact you?” and she talked about how depressed she was and all the emotional turmoil she went through.  He asked her another question, “How do you think having an abortion will impact you?” and the woman declared as if having an epiphany, “I never thought of that!”  Having an abortion (which would be her choice) after the trauma of multiple miscarriages (which were not her choice) would have compounded her grief.  Far from helping her, an abortion would have harmed her.

• CMA Code of Ethics Policy 23: “Recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic services that you consider to be beneficial to your patient or to others.”

     Just yesterday it was all over the news that a recent medical study shows a link between contraceptive use and higher depression risk.  The published harms of birth control are not minor. Consider this list.  When fertility is a sign of the body working properly and there is therefore no pathology present that necessitates intervention, and when there is published evidence that hormonal birth control causes harm to an otherwise healthy body, it is entirely reasonable for a physician to not prescribe birth control because to do so would not be beneficial to the patient.

     Furthermore, when alternatives to hormonal birth control exist, such as fertility awareness that involves observing changes to a woman’s cervical mucous and published research about using a fertility monitor to determine fluctuating hormone levels (here and here), a physician can provide this information to a patient who can use observable facts to determine her own patterns of fertility. 

     Moreover, take the case of a Canadian physician whose patient wanted an abortion after discovering, via a 19-week ultrasound, that she was pregnant with a female fetus.  The physician sought to understand what could be motivating the patient, and the patient subsequently disclosed that she herself was brutally abused as a child because she was a girl; her request for a sex-selection abortion was grounded in trauma from her past, not a true desire to kill a female fetus.  It was clear to the physician that passing the woman along to an abortionist would not address what was ultimately the problem, and instead what was beneficial to the patient was helping her heal from her past.  The patient opted to carry to term and is so happy to have her baby girl.

• The Practice Guide of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: “Maintaining trust is an important aspect of medical professionalism. Patients must be able to trust that the physician will always uphold the values of the profession; in the absence of the trusting relationship the physician cannot help the patient and the patient cannot benefit from the relationship.”

     If physicians are involved in the business of killing, how can patients trust that their lives will be preserved?  Indeed, that’s a concern of several medical bodies in the United States when it comes to the death penalty.  In May of this year, pharmaceutical company Pfizer declared,

     “Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve. Consistent with these values, Pfizer strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment.”

     The American Medical Association shares this concern and stated,  

     “No matter how one feels about capital punishment, it is disquieting for physicians to act as agents of the state in the assisting, supervising or contributing to a legally authorized execution.  Physicians are fundamentally healers dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so. The knowledge and skill of physicians must only be used for care, compassion and healing. To have the state mandate that physician skills be turned against a human being undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine – first, do no harm.

     “The American Medical Association is troubled by continuous refusal of states to acknowledge the ethical obligations of physicians that strictly prohibit involvement in capital punishment. The AMA's policy is clear and unambiguous – requiring physicians to participate in executions violates their oath to protect lives and introduces deep ambiguity into the very definition of medical care.”

     If we should avoid physician involvement in the killing of guilty criminals, how much more should we avoid physician involvement in the killing of innocent sick people?

     In closing, whether or not the ethicists get their way and eliminate “conscientious” objectors from medicine, they can’t eliminate research-based, code-of-ethics following, human rights-promoting physicians, which is exactly what pro-life doctors are.  After all, as Dr. Michael Bouhadana, family practitioner and palliative and pain care consultant to the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal says,

     “A doctor’s job is to cure sometimes, relieve often, comfort always – kill never.”

Twins: Double the Fun or Double the Trouble? by Stephanie Gray

My mom and my aunt, her twin.

     A quick google search of “you’re pregnant with twins” produces over 1 million results, the first of which says, “Are you having two (or three, or more) times the fun?”

     There is something powerfully positive about twins (my mom, an identical twin, would agree, as would I who technically have a second biological mother).  In fact, the positive impact of twins can be seen in a story featured in The Blaze about a woman who was going to have an abortion but changed her mind to adoption—until she discovered she had twins.  Once she found out she had two babies she changed her mind again—this time to parenting.  She said, “I thought about our life together and what it could be” 

     But while some look at twins as “double the fun,” tragically others view them as “double the trouble.”  And that came to mind when I read a story in the National Post last week about an Ottawa woman who seized on news of being pregnant with twins as grounds to kill one of them through abortion.

     As I read about various facts in this case, I was struck by how crazy the thinking of our abortion-obsessed culture has become.  For example, the hospital the woman initially went to refused to “reduce” her twin pregnancy to a singleton.  At the time, however, had circumstances been different, they would have acted: If she had three babies instead of two, they would have aborted one.  If she had a diseased baby instead of a healthy one, the hospital also would have aborted.  

     Their standards seem to convey that killing a child isn’t inherently wrong, but only conditionally wrong, and that these pre-born children didn’t meet the conditions.  That flies in the face of human rights doctrines which acknowledge that the inalienable right to life is something we have by virtue of being a member of the human family, not by virtue of meeting certain conditions.  Indeed, back when I was studying at UBC, I recall a bioethics professor remarking that abortion is either all right or all wrong—the “grey” zone doesn’t exist, she said.  That makes sense; after all, if the pre-born aren’t human, then why would we stop any abortion?  On the other hand, if the pre-born are human, then why would we permit any abortion? 

     Perhaps the mother herself would attempt to answer my question by claiming that her eliminating one child would increase the odds of her embracing another child (she was told her twin pregnancy, her older age, and other factors increased her risk of miscarriage).  Doesn’t that violate the universal standard of ethical healthcare: “Do no harm”?  Don’t we decry experiments done to harm one human, even if such experiments might produce evidence that helps another human, precisely because it inflicts harm that is so wrong it doesn’t matter what good comes about?  Correspondingly, shouldn’t we oppose killing one baby in order to increase the odds of bringing to birth another baby because the means to get to that end result involve committing egregious harm?  Unfortunately it seems that that principle would have gotten lost on the mother whose previous decision appears consistent with her more recent one: The news reported that the pregnant patient (known only as “C.V.”) conceived her children by In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). 

     IVF typically involves creating more human beings than are implanted, meaning that some of these tiny, unique, unrepeatable individuals are, at their earliest age, subjected to the injustice of freezing and/or being discarded (and thus killed).  There’s no denying the tragedy of infertility and the need to find ethical solutions to it (a subject for a future post).  Even with that reality we must face this question: Is it ethical to endanger and/or end the lives of some humans because we desperately want to care for other humans?

How to Talk About Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

If you've wondered how to speak clearly and compassionately about euthanasia and assisted suicide, this new apologetics presentation above will help!  Thanks to Victor Panlilio for filming and putting together this recording.  Note: You can also read an FAQ on the topic by clicking here. 

A Step-by-Step Guide to Planning and Delivering a Memorial Service for Aborted Children

Several months ago, I had an idea to create A Memorial Service for Aborted Children.  In recently piloting it at a church in BC, I saw over 100 people flock to the church to honor and remember aborted children.  This experience taught me that everyone has a story, and many are suffering silently.  One person had, decades before, paid for an abortion.  Another person’s mother had almost been aborted.  Another person tried to dissuade someone from supporting a friend’s abortion—and failed.  The stories go on, showing that while some have directly had abortions, all have been touched by abortion in some way.  A memorial is a way of responding to these experiences.  As one attendee said afterwards, “I’ve experienced a healing, and will sleep better tonight than I have in years.”

This event was extremely low cost, did not involve much work, and was hugely powerful.  So if you’re interested in the simple steps to put on this life-changing event, consider yourself the leader who will follow what’s below and take charge of overseeing and delegating.  This blog entry is designed to make it as easy as possible for this event to be replicated around the world.  Besides you as leader and MC of the event, the main people you need to enlist to help you are as follows: a pastor, a church secretary, musicians, a sound person, a post-abortive woman (and/or man) to give a testimony, and a few counselors/prayer persons.

Here are the steps to take:

1.      Read the document “A Memorial Service for Aborted Children: The Idea Explained.”  Be sure to share this document with the planning team you develop below.

2.      Consult your pastor to get “buy in” and select a date and time that works for him and your church.  The service runs for approximately 1 hour and he will need to prepare a sermon of maximum 10 minutes (on the theme of memorializing the aborted and healing for the wounded), open and close the service in prayer, and select a Bible passage to read.

3.      Book musicians.  Ask your church’s worship team or 2-3 people to lead the music for the event.  Find out what instruments, cables, etc., they require you to arrange for at the church (although ideally this would be primarily handled by the musicians themselves).  We had two singers who harmonized and used one instrument (a piano) and it was hauntingly powerful; numerous attendees raved about the music.  Of course, the musicians were extremely talented (led by Kathleen LeBlanc of “A Guy and a Girl”), but the point is sometimes less is more.

4.      Book a person to ensure proper audio set up and the presence of all required microphones, cables, instruments, and other technology required by the musicians and for the whole service and confirm they will arrive early to work with the musicians to set this up.

5.      Select songs. Ask the musicians to select 7-8 songs and provide lyrics to you.  You can provide input.  Songs should be chosen that are reflective and highlight mercy, as well as fitting for a funeral/memorial.  When we piloted this event, we chose songs for the beginning and end that all attendees would likely know.  As the service progressed, songs chosen were “less known” and primarily sung by the musicians to correspond with the service becoming more reflective and contemplative for attendees.  See sample song choices here.

6.      Book someone to give a post-abortive testimony.  For our pilot of this in Maple Ridge, BC, we chose Elizabeth Sutcliffe of Silent No More Awareness Canada who gave an extremely powerful testimony.  The testimony should last no more than 15 minutes, with 10 being ideal.

7.      Book counselors/prayer team persons to be present at the memorial should attendees wish to speak with one afterwards.  If the event is held at a Catholic church, book a priest or two to hold confession following the memorial as well.  The counselors should be the welcoming committee to hand out the programs upon peoples’ arrival so that there is face-recognition when they are introduced later on (the role they play is announced by the MC in the closing remarks, which are in the MC’s detailed notes here).

8.      Book reception hosts.  At our pilot event, the youth group and their families took on the responsibility to organize all food and drinks as well as the set-up and clean-up of a reception for after the memorial.

9.      Book a little boy and little girl (between the ages of 5 and 10) to be dressed in “Sunday best” and walk up the aisle, holding flowers, with the priest/pastor at the beginning.  This is explained in the MC’s detailed notes which can be viewed here.

10.  Promote!  Promote!  Promote!

a.       Create, or work with your church secretary to create, a large poster that can be printed to be placed at your church and other churches within your geographic area.  Deliver these to other churches 3 weeks ahead of time.  See sample poster file here.

b.      Write a sample bulletin announcement and have your church secretary put it in each weekly bulletin 4-6 weeks ahead of the event.  See sample bulletin announcement here.

c.       Set up a public Facebook event page and invite your friends, and have the other event helpers invite their friends.  Share the FB event every week until the event (with an extra reminder the morning of) as well as write reminder posts in the event page itself.  See sample FB event here.

d.      Contact your local religious newspaper to see if they will do a story about the event so it’s printed 2 weeks before the event.  See actual newspaper coverage here.

e.       Have your pastor or priest preach on abortion at all weekend services/masses a Sunday before the event.  See an actual sermon preached before a memorial here.  See a document for ideas for pro-life sermons here.

f.       You make an announcement at the end of each service/mass about the memorial the Sunday that your pastor would have preached on abortion.  See sample announcement here.

11.  Prepare program and ask the church secretary to print out sufficient numbers (we printed 150 the first time and had approximately 120 attendees).  To see our program click here.

12.  Items you need to gather for the night-of (ideally your church will already have them) and arrive early to lay out:

a.       Tea-light candles: arrange these along the front of the church.  (We laid out 200 across the communion rail.)  Have a starter candle lit and wood sticks for when people need to light.

b.      Pens and paper: distribute these throughout the pews/chairs.

c.       Buy flowers: we bought two packages of red and white carnations.

d.      A vase at the front for the flowers.

e.       Name tags for the counselors/prayer persons to wear.

f.       The printed programs for attendees.

13.  Have your MC notes ready—click here to read the ones from our pilot event.

If everyone committed to a role above arrives early and is prepared to fulfill their responsibility, the event goes very smoothly.  Ours did, and was an extremely beautiful and touching evening that attendees described as powerful, moving, and needed!  If you do this, please send me your feedback and testimonies about how the event went.

Note: It is common at an event remembering pre-born children lost to abortion, for those affected by miscarriage to be reminded of their own loss of pre-born children too.  This is natural and understandable because of the similar age of the children lost; the memorial, however, does not formally address miscarriage because there is a substantively different nature between miscarriage and abortion.  In the former the children die naturally whereas in the latter, their lives are purposefully destroyed.  So while I encourage remembering and memorializing miscarried children for proper honoring and healing, I recommend doing so in a different service from one remembering children unjustly killed.   A different but powerful program can be read about here and here.  Moreover, at the time of miscarriage one could also do a funeral and even a burial. 

You Before Me is Better than Me Before You, by Stephanie Gray

“Wait for it…It’s going to make you raaaaaaaage.”

     That’s what my friend texted me who had told me about the book, and soon-to-be-released movie, “Me Before You.”  She suggested I read it, not because under normal circumstances it would be worth my time (or hers), but rather because she had just attended a pro-life apologetics presentation I gave on assisted suicide and euthanasia and she thought I should be aware of the story as my future audiences might bring it up.

     So on the weekend, as it poured rain, I curled up and got caught up in the world of the main characters Louisa Clark and Will Traynor.  So would I recommend it?  Absolutely not.  It’s dangerous—very dangerous.  Setting aside the obvious problems of blasphemous language and sexual references, the storyline supports assisted suicide—but it does so in a sneaky way, making it all the more dangerous.

     Initially Louisa, hired to be a companion and helper to wheelchair-bound Will, was my hero.  She was from a family that, while it had its own dysfunctions, overall lived a self-less philosophy:

·         Louisa worked so as to help provide for her poverty-stricken family.  You before me.

·         Her parents welcomed her sister home when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, and helped care for their grandson.   You before me.

·         Her mom quit work to care for the family’s ailing grandfather.  You before me.

     But the world of you before me was about to collide with another world—the ugly world of me before you.  The Traynor family had it all—by the world’s standards: unlimited wealth and the ability to go wherever and do whatever.  But they were all miserable because they lacked love:

·         Mr. Traynor was having an affair (not his first).  Me before you.

·         When Will’s sister Georgina visits and learns of his plan to have assisted suicide in 6 months she gets angry that he would do it, but instead of using the 6 months to give him the gift of time, attention, and love, to try to convince him he’s valuable and should stay alive, she returns to Australia saying, “…this was just a visit…It’s a really good job…the one I’ve been working toward for the past two years…I can’t put my whole life on hold just because of Will’s mental state.” Me before you.

·         Will himself, pre-accident, lead a life of self-indulgence.  Me before you. 

     So why was Louisa my hero initially? When she learns that the parents have agreed to assist Will in his suicide in 6 months’ time, she quits because she doesn’t want to be part of killing.  Louisa, you’re my hero.  Then she decides to return to work, realizing she can spend the next few months trying to make Will’s life as incredible as possible so he doesn’t choose suicide.  Louisa, you’re my hero.  Then she takes Will on a life-creating and spirit-building vacation and tells him she wants to devote her life to loving and serving him, but he refuses saying he still plans to commit suicide, so she cuts him off in a decision to remove herself from the killing.  Louisa, you’re my hero.

     But then it all goes downhill.  And I understood why my friend said “It’s going to make you raaaaaaaage.”  Almost every single character caves.  Mr. and Mrs. Traynor, Georgina, Mr. Clark, Louisa’s sister. And Louisa herself.  They all cave.  They all encourage, facilitate or are actually present at Will’s suicide the way he wants it. 

     And a morally un-formed reader will think, “Maybe it’s not so bad after all. Maybe, by being present, that was the loving thing to do.”  No, no it’s not.  Would they have been present if Will was killing a child?  Then why would they be present when Will killed himself?  His life is just as unrepeatable, and just as irreplaceable, as a child’s.  Life, whether our own or someone else’s, is not ours to take.  Moreover, Will couldn’t have gotten to the suicide clinic without their help.  So his act of suicide actually turned into their act of homicide.  Had they refused to “help” him, especially when, as a result of Louisa’s involvement in his life, he admitted those were the best 6 months of his entire life, Will may have gone on to thrive in a world of human connection and a world of you before me.  But we will never know.  Because he’s dead.  And they helped kill him.

     Will was obsessed with control, and argued he needed to end his life because it was the one thing he could control.  But he could control more than death—he could control his perspective.  Holocaust survivor Dr. Viktor Frankl wrote in his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” that “everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances…”

     When someone is despairing so much that they can’t see they can choose their attitude, it’s the job of people who care to help them see this, not to feed into despair.  As one palliative care website says for why they don’t allow or encourage assisted suicide, “In our experience, the issue of physician-assisted suicide often arises as a response to a complex set of problems which we help people sort through and address.”  If only Louisa et al had helped Will sort through and address his problems.

     So when the movie is released this Friday, and unsuspecting movie-goers who’ve seen the trailer may have no clue it’s actually about assisted suicide, please boycott the film and encourage others to do the same.  And when someone asks why, you could begin by explaining, “You before me is better than me before you…”

Has Your Pastor Preached on Abortion? A Resource to Help, by Stephanie Gray

A year and a half ago, I met Pastor Ken Shigematsu, senior pastor of Tenth Church in Vancouver, where 2,000 people attend each Sunday.  He was preparing to deliver a sanctity of life sermon on abortion and asked me to preview his outline and give feedback.  Unfortunately Pastor Ken is rare—all too often church leaders avoid doing what he did: they avoid preaching on abortion from the pulpit, especially on a high-attendance Sunday morning.  But that needs to change. 

After working through his outline and doing my own presentations in various churches over the years, I developed a resource to make a pastor’s job as easy as possible when preparing to speak on this sensitive subject.  By clicking here you can access my PDF “Notes for a Pro-Life Sermon” and share it with your church leader.  In fact, last fall Bishop Dewane of the Diocese of Venice, Florida, circulated this resource to all of his priests.  Regardless of denomination, this document provides insights and resources a pastor can work with to deliver a pro-life message that is his own.

And why should he?  Because of the following:

1) Abortion happens a lot: 56 million of the youngest humans among us, pre-born children, are killed by abortion—every year around the world.  

2) Abortion happens amongst Christians: According to the Guttmacher Institute, 13% of women obtaining abortions identify as Evangelical Protestant, 17% as mainline Protestant, and 24% as Catholic.  That means that over 50% of women aborting align themselves with a Christian faith tradition of some sort. [Note: The source for this comes from the Guttmacher Institute (GI), which is a pro-abortion organization; however, they collect statistics that are otherwise difficult to obtain.  Furthermore, GI is an American organization.  Similar statistics are near impossible to get in Canada since statistic-collection regarding abortion in Canada is limited.  However, given the similarity between both countries regarding abortion rates and public opinion on abortion, it is reasonable to deduce that Canada’s statistics about the faith background of women having abortions would be similar to those of the US.]

3) Abortion happens amongst women who have already made that choice: As I’ve written in the past, some of the post-abortive are pre-abortive, as pointed out in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Canada (2012; 34(6): 532-542) which stated, “At least one third of women undergoing induced abortions in Canada have had a prior abortion.”  So not only can preaching spare women from ever killing their children, it can spare women from killing more of their children.

These statistics alone highlight the importance of preaching on this topic.  And any fear a pastor may have that people will react poorly needs to be addressed by this point: People may react poorly if the topic is handled poorly.  But the opposite of poor preaching is not no preaching—it’s good preaching.  This PDF will equip pastors to preach well on the topic of abortion in order to bring justice, mercy, and healing to our world. 

The Power of No, by Stephanie Gray

     I always seem to be on a plane, 30,000 feet above my home, when news is released of my country making landmark decisions to advance the Culture of Death.  In February 2015 when the Supreme Court overturned the law prohibiting assisted suicide, I was en route to speak in Texas.  Yesterday, fourteen months later, I was en route to present in Wisconsin and my stopover gave me a chance to read that the Liberal government had introduced Bill C-14, draft legislation allowing for euthanasia and assisted suicide.  And although it was tempting to want to stay in the clouds, to flee a country that promotes perversion of “health care,” my plane landed, I had my passport, and I was reminded that I am Canadian.  So as I think about my country’s attack on human life—and my country’s attack on the medical profession that is given the sacred duty to respect and protect that life—it occurs to me that the response of people of good will ought to be very simple: We just say no.

A firm,

confident,

calm,

unshakable,

unwavering,

            well-reasoned

No.

     Think of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man: the power of no.  Think of Gandhi and his followers’ famous Salt March: the power of no. Think of Alice Paul and her fellow suffragettes: the power of no.  Like these social reformers, we must go against the tide and declaratively state our no in the face of injustice.

• Inject a poison to kill you?  No.
• Refer you to someone who will kill you?  No.
• Hold your hand while you kill yourself?  No.
• Be silent when I should speak?  No.
• Vote for a politician who would advance this Nazi-like philosophy of “lives unworthy of life”? No.

     Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has noted, “Our success will depend more on whether we are respected than liked. Respect flows not from doing what the other finds pleasing, but from what is seen as consistent with principle, courageous, and immune from the temptation to change with the wind.”

     So in the spirit of being consistent with the principle that human life has inherent dignity and worth, that each human being is willed, loved, unrepeatable, and irreplaceable, when some wish to end such a life that is not yet over, we say no.

     In the spirit of being courageous, as the powers-that-be may threaten and intimidate those who do not comply with this impending unjust law (which St. Augustine would say “is no law at all”), we say no.

     In the spirit of refusing to change with the wind, when different variations of the same death-obsessed philosophy are proposed, we say no.

     Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

     The times of challenge and controversy are here—now.  We must embrace the power of no.

Canada's Contradictions, by Stephanie Gray

     Contradiction (con·tra·dic·tion \ˌkän-trə-ˈdik-shən\) the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else; a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true. –Merriam Webster Dictionary

     A read of recent news reveals significant contradictions going on in Canada:

     ·         On one hand, a remote First Nations community in Northern Ontario, Attawapiskat, is facing a suicide crisis so dire they’ve called a state of emergency.  The federal government has responded by sending in mental health counselors to try to stop these deaths.

     ·         But on the other hand, that same federal government is in the process of forming a new law which would make suicide legal, possibly even allowing it for “mature minors” and the mentally ill. 

     Is suicide wrong because of what it is or because of where it’s done?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong when done on a First Nations reserve but right when done in a hospital?  Is suicide wrong because of what it is or because of who does it?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong if done by oneself but right if done with a physician’s assistance? 

     The tie that binds a suicidal teen and a suicidal elderly person is suffering (physical or emotional) to the point that they see no reason to live.  But because people are valuable and killing is wrong, civil societies pursue suicide prevention.  Suicide prevention is all about alleviating a person’s suffering without eliminating the person.  Suicide prevention is about giving hope.  In fact, as the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention points out,

     “‘Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out’ [Victor Havel].

***

     “Hope, at the darkest moments in our life, is not a comprehensive commitment to faith and belief.  At those times hope can be as simple and as profound as the voice of another human being who appears to hear our fear; hope can be the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow, hope can be the smell of fresh spring rain, or the first snow flake, or the photo of someone we love.  When despair seems to overcome us we feel disconnected, isolated, lost.  What we need most in those moments is a means of re-connection, relationship and belonging.” [Emphasis added] 

     As news of suicide spreads across the internet, another contradiction is circulating:

     ·         On one hand, people are horrified at a recent report  revealing that sex-selection abortion is happening among Indian immigrants to Canada, skewing the population’s sex ratio.  The Globe and Mail reported that “among Indian-born mothers, the proportion of males increased with the number of children born. By the third birth, 138 boys were born to Indian-born mothers for every 100 girls, and by the fourth birth, 166 boys were born to every 100 girls.”  The paper stated that over 4,000 girls are “missing” as a result.

     ·         On the other hand, Canada allows abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy—for any reason.  Rather than be horrified, all too often people celebrate this as a “woman’s right to choose.”

     Is abortion wrong because of what it does or because of why it's done?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong when the motivation is getting rid of girls, but okay when the motivation is getting rid of boys, the disabled, the inconvenient, or any human in general?

     The tie that binds a sex-selection abortion and another abortion is the rejection of the youngest humans among us based on the circumstances or wishes of older humans among us.  But because humans are valuable—whether they’re girls or boys—and because killing is wrong, civil societies should reject abortion.

     In brief, Canada can’t have it both ways.  If we are to deplore the suicides in Attawapiskat and if we are to deplore the sex-selection abortions among some Indian immigrants, then we should deplore all suicides and all abortions.

Saving Lives from the Sidewalk, by Stephanie Gray

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.”

     Proverbs 24:11 is often quoted in a pro-life context, but practically, how can it be lived out at the eleventh hour?  How do we rescue and hold back pre-born children who are nestled in the wombs of their mothers who are walking into abortion clinics? 

     Last weekend my questions were answered with clarity when I travelled to St. Louis, Missouri, to speak at the Nexus 2016 conference.  I had the joy of presenting alongside, and spending time with, lawyer Lauren Muzyka of Sidewalk Advocates for Life.  I was extremely impressed with the life-saving work she and her team does “in the trenches.”   Her ministry is described as follows:

     “Sidewalk Advocacy refers to crisis intervention in front of the abortion center. It involves actively encouraging a woman to choose life, empowering her to leave the abortion center, and ministering to all present to bring about a conversion of heart from a culture of death to a culture of life, thereby ending abortion.”

     Does it work?  Already Lauren’s ministry has saved over 1,000 babies and seen more than 25 abortion workers leave their deadly jobs.  The compassionate, well thought out strategy that she and her team employs comes not only from rigorous study, but from hands-on experience: Lauren herself has been a sidewalk counselor for 15 years.

     Much more could be said about Sidewalk Advocates for Life, but I think it is best said by this touching and powerful 6-minute video of a baby saved from abortion by their work: