Run With Life: Finance committee parrots pro-abortion advocates' ...

Run With Life: Finance committee parrots pro-abortion advocates' ...:  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STANDING...

Dear members of the Finance Committee,

I have a question for all of you regarding Recommendation 65 of your RECOMMENDATIONS OF THESTANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE FOR THE 2026 BUDGET:

"... Budget 2026 should also introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to require greater transparency from anti-abortion pregnancy centres in order to mitigate harm to clients and prevent the misuse of charitable status."

I understand from the extensive research I have done on Pregnancy Care Centres, including numerous Access to Information requests I submitted, that the government of Canada bases these allegations of "harm to clients" and "the misuse of charitable status" on the say-so of the Abortion Rights coalition of Canada. (Note that none of these ATIPs I received revealed any evidence of these allegations outside of ARCC's allegations). 

In other words, it appears that the government of Canada is biased and is basing important decisions that affect these charities on a group whose mission is, to repeatedly attack and libel these charities. ARCC has attacked these centres since at least since 2009 where Joyce Arthur (executive director of both groups) received $27,400 in government funding to kick off her initial blitzkrieg on these centres (using Arthur's previous organization the Pro-choice-Action Network). I, and others, have repeatedly rebutted these false claims (see links below). 

Have any of you actually investigated and researched these centres yourself to corroborate that these centres harm clients and misuse their charitable status?

Because if you have not, and are taking ARCC's word for these allegations, with all due respect, you are agreeing to something very serious and not based on the truth.

I have a second question for you. I noticed that absent from your recommendations are recommendations from three Christian charities on the same subject. Why are their recommendations not included when you do include the scurrilous recommendations from ARCC? This looks like anti-Christian discrimination.

As ARPA stated in their submission to the committee:

"Previous calls to revoke the charitable tax status of pregnancy care centres ignore the benefits that these centres provide to women. At root, calls to revoke their charitable status are ideologically motivated attempts to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree." (emphasis added)

Here are the two extensively researched reports refuting the two "studies" Abortion Rights Coalition wrote attacking Pregnancy Care Centres:

(From Pregnancy Care Canada. Note that this rebuttal is based on the Pro-Choice Action Network's report which is the previous name for the Abortion Rights Coalition and headed by the same person) :
Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report
My rebuttal to a subsequent ARCC report on these centres.
ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES

Here are the three recommendations from the three Christian charities that you chose not to include in your recommendations, in favour of ARCC's ideologically motivated attempt to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree. 

ARPA
https://arpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Federal-Budget-Consultation.pdf

Christian Legal Fellowship

https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2026charityupdate

Canadian Centre for Christian Charities    

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/451/FINA/Brief/BR14102560/br-external/CanadianCentreForChristianCharities-e.pdf

A recent example of Joyce Arthur's ongoing witch hunt against these clinics where she recycles her untruths about these centres. Just have a look at the title of her article:

Unregulated pregnancy centres cause lasting harms—we need transparency UPCs cause harm through deception, disinformation, and other traumatizing strategies meant to turn people away from abortion

I look forward to hearing back from the committee soon with answers to my questions.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney 

Ottawa

Facing Violence is a weekly reality for pro lifers in Canada

Pro Lifers are opposed to violence, but that is not what Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Action League would have you believe.  She makes false statements that WE are the violent ones and goes so low as to condone acts of violence towards us.  And many of our political leaders buy into her non truths. 

I have been actively Pro Life for decades, and never have I encountered a pro life person who wasn't anything but peaceful.  In fact over the years I have seen numerous verbal and physical attacks on us from abortion supporters for simply praying or standing quietly holding a sign that says “Pray to End Abortion” And now we aren’t even allowed to do that any more.   

click here

And acts of violence towards us are virtually ignored by our liberal mainstream media. This is discrimination plain and simple and you never hear a word from our Political leaders  condemning it. Federal, Provincial, and Municipal: they are all the same. click here

Obviously I don’t expect everyone to have the same point of view that I have, but I do expect that I have a right to that point of view without being treated like a second class citizen for having it.  Isn’t that what democracy is all about?  

Jonathon Van Maren sums up this double standard way better than I could ever do.  Click below to hear to Jonathan’s podcast 
Abortion activists frequently lie and claim that pro-lifers pose a risk to abortion workers. The reality on the ground is that pro-lifers, often young women, are attacked with shocking regularity. Jonathon Van Maren breaks it down.

Senator St. Germain's Senate statement on Rona Ambrose' Freedom of expression

Senator St. Germain just made the following statement in the Senate on October 2, 2012:

Honourable Senators,

Freedom of expression is a right often taken for granted.

As Parliamentarians, we enjoy the use of this right – free from hindrance – every day throughout the discourse of our debates and though other channels of communication.

as representatives of the public, We are responsible to uphold this right, and protect its value.

Last week in the other place this coveted right was under siege after being exercised by the Honourable Rona Ambrose during a free vote.

The issue of Ms. Ambrose’s vote in favour of Motion 312 goes beyond the subject matter of the Motion its self.

The outcry from the folks condemning her democratic action only highlights the ugly truth in this country that freedom of expression does not exist in the face of intolerance.

The opinions expressed by these special interest groups toward the actions of Ms. Ambrose are rather disingenuous.

They fail to realize that tolerance is a two way street.

During my nearly 30 years as a Parliamentarian, never once did I regret my decision to exercise my right to stand up for what I believed in.

And I defended my decisions against dissenting opinions, as was my right to do so - - - as much as it was their right to disagree with me.

But never once was I condemned or cast as morally void for having excised my right to vote freely.

Honourable Senators, whether we agree or disagree with the issue at hand, Ms. Ambrose should be congratulated - not condemned - for having the courage of her convictions to stand up and freely vote her conscience.

As a Member of Parliament, her actions rightly represent the essence of our democratic society.

Thank you.

For more on this story click here
http://weneedalaw.ca/index.php/press-kit/archive/view/listid-2-media/mailid-60-senatordefendsministerambrose

Run With Life: Are abortion guidelines enough?

Run With Life: Are abortion guidelines enough?: The Insufficiency of Guidelines Written by Mike Schouten Canada should do away with its drunk driving laws. We no longer need laws prohi...