The Canadian Parliament might also
consider eliminating the threat to the matrimonial bond
inherent in "No Fault" Divorce. Permitting one
marriage partner to unilaterally end a joint relationship
with impunity is very destabilizing to Canadian families,
and creates too much business in Family Law . We think
Canadians still get married for more reasons than just
establishing a temporary monogamy within which to
share spousal benefits and to establish paternity claims.
We think Canadians still think of marriage as a
relationship of Trust and security, in the tradition of the
oft spoken vow of "For Better or Worse".
With "No Fault
Divorce", there is no remedy when the Trust
placed in a "Spouse" is breached. There is
therefore no deterrent for matrimonial predators who by
becoming a "spouse" have free license 24/7 to take children,
inheritance and family assets, and hold these hostage from
the distraught father. There is no fund
established with the "saved" litigation costs to insure the
victim of Divorce as there is in other "no-fault"
schemes. Since ~1972 Canadian legislation
has been gutted of such dearly held values by "No Fault
Divorce" and has been devolved into a division of assets
and other financial obligations. Only the
lawyers gain by putting so much more within their grasp.
We think there is substantial merit in:
Reestablishing the "Fault" in
Divorce legislation. If couples prefer to live
under a cohabitation agreement there is nothing to
prevent them. But if a couple wishes to live as a
"married" couple, why should legislation preclude them
from living as "married" in the historic sense?
Reestablishing the Enticement laws,
providing the injured spouse with claims against third
parties who entice their spouse to end their marriage.
This one change will make the ubiquitous father-hatred
groups unprofitable to run, and leave families to
succeed or fail of their own accord. It also gives
children a chance at recouping their inheritance from
these professional Misandrists
Reestablishing the Seduction laws,
providing the injured spouse with claims against third
parties who seduce their spouse into adulterous
relationships.
We apologize that the
following figures have not been developed for the Province of BC
specifically. We hope to do this over time. We do know,
however that women often move to BC from Alberta and the rest of Canada
to have their divorces done here in BC where the
misandry of the Family Courts will
maximize their powers to destroy their husbands.
Children from fatherless homes account
for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept.
of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US
Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway
children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated
institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit
behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced
anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26,
1978).
71% of all high school dropouts.
(Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High
Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in
chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons.
(Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of
Corrections 1992).
Children from fatherless
homes are:
11 times more likely to exhibit violent
behavior than children from intact "married" homes.
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to runaway.
20 times more likely to have behavioral
disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape.
9 times more likely to drop out of high
school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical
substances.
9 times more likely to end up in
state-operated institutions.
20 times more likely to end up in
prison.
"37.9% of
fathers have no access/visitation rights."
(Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau
P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the
non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing
Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in
Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of
Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall,
approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued
contact with his children...."
(Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith
Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input
when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors
rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK
Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November
1994, p. 36)
"The former
spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent
contact with the children." (Source:
Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with
their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July
1991.)
"A clear
majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their
children." (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce,
Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of
the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their
fathers, after divorce." (Source:
Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source:
Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July
1993.)
"Mothers may
prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship."
(Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family,
Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: "Visitational
Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and
Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers
are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a
result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent.
In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three
times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and
impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept.
1992
Child Support
Information from multiple
sources show that only 10% of all non-custodial fathers fit the
"deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the
support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of
those with NO visitation rights still financially support their
children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because
they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report:
GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
Custodial mothers who receive a support
award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support
award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally
default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally
default on support: 26.9%
Judges and their elite
Star
Chamber entrench their power and status to rule over Canadians with
impunity and unbridled
narcissism.
Feminist and Homosexual Activists as Judges effect
their political agenda without the consent of the Canadian demographic.
They with full knowledge and intent (scripted in the sixties & seventies
by their Activist writers) circumvent due democratic process and
knowingly contravene the founding legal constructs of Canada in the BNA
& in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activist Judges happily
and routinely breach the Trust placed in them by their employer, the
Canadian Taxpayer.
Lawyers routinely Entice into self-destruction and
financial rape vast numbers of families entering their doors.
Because of the Statutory self-regulation of the BC Law Society, we know
of no limiting factor to cap the Activism of the Judiciary other than
prosecuting Judges and Lawyers who exceed the powers granted them by
Statute.
The BC Law Society pimps BC women, and use them as
their hookers. With others (also conspicuously funded by the
Taxpayer), Law Society members instruct women to hook fathers and
families into the Courts and the financial ruin a "Legal Marriage"
entails. Children NEED this threat to their security to be
EXTERMINATED.
Faced with the entrenched Father Hatred and
Affirmative Action of the burgeoning civil service, boys and young men
despair. Having no vision for a Future or a university education,
they become prone to fulfill the Father Hatred prophecies of BC
university's Women's Studies faculties and Feminist Activists.
"Children of single parents were at
higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect and were
overrepresented among seriously injured, moderately injured, and
endangered children. Compared with their counterparts living with both
parents, children in single parent families had:
a 77% greater risk of being
harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a
63% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using
the Endangerment Standard);
an 87% greater risk of being
harmed by physical neglect and a 165% greater risk of experiencing
any countable physical neglect;
a 74% greater risk of being
harmed by emotional neglect and a 64% greater risk of experiencing
any countable emotional neglect;
a 220% (or more than three
times) greater risk of being educationally neglected;
an approximately 80% greater
risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect;
an approximately 90% greater
risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child
maltreatment; and
a 120% (or more than two times)
greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or
neglect."
2006-11-10
Top judges rebuke Tories Federal plan would allow police to help
appoint judiciary - workopolis.com; "Beverley
McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of
the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to
Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change
the way judges are chosen. The Canadian Judicial Council
expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce "significant
changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory
Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet
candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.
Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to
include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of
changes to the committee vetting process."
We
need in the very least some kind of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
which will look something like::
Divide the Law Society into two groups of
Judges and Practicing Lawyers to protect the Lawyers who would
make Cases against Judges. There would be some Law Society
Members who may practice as Barristers, and some as Solicitors,
but a Judge must RETIRE from the Practice of Law and
become unable to affect the Law Society while they act as a
Judge. On removal of a Judge for
Judicial Activism,
the Law Society may deny their return to Practice from
Retirement for specified cause, such as the case made during
an unsuccessful Criminal Charge of
Breach of Trust or Treason.
The Judges naturally divide into two bodies,
the Provincial and Federal Judicial Societies to parallel the
Provincial and Federal Courts. Membership in both Judicial
Societies must be precluded. Federal Judges would be tried
by Provincial Judges according to the
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, and the Provincial Judges would
be tried by the Federal Judges. They could be tried both
in Tort and in Criminal Court for
Breach of Trust and for
Treason.
Make Judicial Appointments for a FIXED TERM
of no more than five years (Jimmy Pattison where are you when we
need you?)
Judicial Re-Appointment must meet a Test for
Judicial Re-Appointment which demonstrates the prescribed
Impartiality (that is an Activism Free record.) and Non-Infamy
with the Electorate.
Automatic Temporary Suspension Without Pay
for a Judge who is going to Trial in Tort or in Criminal
Court, pending its outcome.
Eradication
of
Freemasonry from the Judiciary and Law Societies. Both
are granted special privileges by Parliamentary Statute which
they receive In Trust.. Judicial Candidates and sitting
Judges must be vetted for Occult
practices resulting in Public Safety concerns such as
Pedophilia.
Pedophilia is an established part of Occult worship
(See
Malachi Martin among others) and is reported to be a
tolerated practice of some high ranking Judges.
Trial by Jury of Judges before non-allied and
non-associated Judges, e.g.. Federal
Judges
tried before Provincial Judges, visa versa..
NO SPECIAL
PROSECUTORS for Judges or other Public Servants being
tried.
Under the "federal" division of powers in the BNA
(Constitution Act, 1867)) Education falls into the Provincial
domain. A parallel Provincial Statute to amend the licensing
and Suspension of Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
Four Missions
Natural
Grandparents Rights Proposals; Social Works
& Foster Parents get funding for raising other people's
children, Grandparents don't because they're a "Kinship Family".
See Saskatoon G I F T (Grandparents Involved Full Time)
Dorothy Bird: (306) 382-3650
We
say that's WRONG, and Grans should not be jeopardizing their
financial stability to raise an unexpected New Arrival.
2008-01-09_Documentary to focus on kinship families
"Tammy Brockhaus, with her grandson, Alex, is one of thousands
raising a grandchild in Canada. W-5 is airing a documentary on the
issue of grandparents raising grandchildren on Feb. 9 .. Brockhaus
is a 58-year-old widow who has been raising her six-year-old
grandson, Alex, since he was 30 days old. While the last six years
have proved to be a challenge for her, Brockhaus,
who also has three grown children, has found fulfillment raising a
child the second time around."
Removal of judges from office, Oklahoma
Constitution
(a) In addition to other
methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws,
the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the
provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of
the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal
from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for
causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the
Judiciary.
(b) Cause for removal from
office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in
office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of
any offense involving moral turpitude;
gross partiality in office;
oppression in office; or other grounds as may be
specified hereafter by the legislature.
(c) Cause for compulsory
retirement from office, with or without compensation, shall
be mental or physical disability preventing the proper
performance of official duty, or incompetence to perform the
duties of the office"
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
"This
is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" ... A group called the
National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v.
Wade for Men." ... More than three decades
ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but
nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual
intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the
freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an
unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up
control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women
are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as
the price of intimacy."
COMMENT: Roe
V. Wade was a "Femi-Narcissistic" decision, looking after the
interests of the Mother only. The principal established there
established was extrapolated into a Mother's "murder rights"
expressed in minimal sentences when murdering their children.
Equal Parenting eliminates much of this.
Father dealt difficult hand by the system
"Even last week, when the family court file of
Elaine and Leo Campione was released to the press -- in
significant measure because Mr. Campione didn't oppose the
media's bid to see it .. There is, to be frank, an
underlying perspective of feminist oppression from which all
else springs. .. Women are seen first as victims --
generally of male power and particularly of husband power -- and
presumed to be truth-tellers and good mothers until proven
otherwise. The starting point for men is that they are abusers
and deadbeat dads in the making unless they can prove the
contrary, and if it takes years for them to demonstrate that, oh
well."
1892: Parliament passes Canada's first Criminal Code.
It prohibits abortion as well as the sale, distribution and
advertising of contraceptives. A significant number of women
continue to seek abortions, according to news reports.
1969: Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government decriminalizes
contraception and allows abortion under certain circumstances.
Abortions may be performed in a hospital if a committee of
doctors decides that continuing the pregnancy may endanger the
mother's life or health. Access to abortions varies across the
country.
1969: Abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler defies the
law and opens an abortion clinic in Montreal. His clinic is
raided in 1970 and he is charged with several offences. It marks
the beginning of a 20-year series of legal battles.
May 1970: 35 women chain themselves to the parliamentary
gallery as part of a two-day demonstration for abortion rights.
March 1973: Morgentaler announces that he has
successfully performed over 5,000 abortions.
March 1975: Morgentaler begins serving an 18-month jail
sentence after the Supreme Court of Canada rejects his appeal.
Earlier, a Quebec court had convicted him of a charge of
conspiracy to commit an abortion. While he's in jail, Quebec
prosecutes him on a second count of conspiracy to commit an
abortion. This time, he's acquitted - and the Quebec Court of
Appeal does not overturn the verdict.
May 1975: A petition against abortion rights with over
one million signatures is delivered to Parliament.
January 1976: The federal justice minister sets aside
Morgentaler's original conviction and orders a retrial.
Morgentaler is released from jail after serving 10 months.
September 1976: Morgentaler is acquitted of the original
charge laid after his Montreal clinic was raided in 1970. In
November, Quebec's newly-elected Parti Québécois government
drops all outstanding charges against Morgentaler.
1982: Canada enacts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Any law found contravening those rights can be struck down as
invalid.
July 1983: Police raid Morgentaler's newly-opened Toronto
clinic and charge him along with two colleagues. Over the next
five years the case winds its way up to the Supreme Court.
1983: Former Manitoba politician
Joe Borowski launches a case asking the courts to declare
the 1969 amendments invalid. He argues that the outlay of public
money for abortion is unlawful because it contravenes the
Canadian Charter of Rights, which he argues guarantees a fetus's
right to life.
A Gallup poll shows that 72 per cent of Canadians believe the
decision to abort should rest solely with the pregnant woman and
her doctor.
1988: The Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada's
abortion law as unconstitutional. The law is found to violate
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it
infringes upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of
person."
Chief Justice Brian Dickson writes: "Forcing
a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to
term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own
priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a
woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the
person."
Canada is now one of a small number of countries without a law
restricting abortion. Abortion is now treated like any other
medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical
regulations.
March 1989:The
Supreme Court of Canada refuses to rule on Borowski's case,
which argues that fetuses have a constitutionally guaranteed
right to life. The court says his case is moot since the
abortion law had already been struck down.
1989: The Supreme Court rules that a father has no legal
right to veto a woman's abortion decision. The ruling comes
after the boyfriend of Chantal Daigle obtained a court
injunction preventing her from getting an abortion. By the time
the case was settled, Daigle had secretly obtained a late-term
abortion in the U.S. In Ontario, a similar injunction was
granted against Barbara Dodd filed by her ex-boyfriend. She too
has an abortion but later tells the public she regrets her
decision.
1989: Nova Scotia bans abortions in clinics outside
hospitals.
1990: The federal government, led by Progressive
Conservative Brian Mulroney, introduces
Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail
for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk.
The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the
Senate after a tie vote.
May 1992: Morgentaler's Toronto clinic is firebombed.
1994: New Brunswick bans abortions in clinics
outside hospitals.
November 1994:
Dr. Garson Romalis is the first Canadian doctor shot for
performing abortions. He's hit by a sniper while eating
breakfast in his Vancouver home. Two other similar shootings
follow in 1995 and 1997, first in Ontario, then Manitoba. None
of the attacks is fatal. James Kopp, who was later convicted for
the fatal shooting of a doctor who performed abortions in
Buffalo, is named as a suspect in some of the Canadian
shootings.
1995: Provincial and federal rulings force Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick to allow private abortion clinics. Despite
that, access to abortions outside hospitals continues to be
inconsistent across the country. Some provinces decide to cover
the cost of abortions performed in clinics outside hospitals.
Others don't, meaning that women who can't get into a hospital
for an abortion must pay the costs of a clinic abortion out of
their own pocket.
June 2, 2004: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tries to
steer clear of the abortion controversy while campaigning for
the June 28 election, saying he has no plans to change the
country's abortion regulations if he forms the next government.
The statement comes after his party's health critic says women
considering an abortion should receive third-party counselling.
June 3, 2004: Liberal Leader Paul Martin says he would
never undermine a woman's right to choose on the issue of
abortion.
May 18, 2006: Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital in
Fredericton, the last hospital in New Brunswick to perform
publicly funded abortions, announces it will suspend the service
as of July 1, citing workload problems. New Brunswick is the
only province in Canada that refuses to pay for abortions
performed in clinics, despite the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada
ruling.
It has been suggested that,
Roe V Wade (1973) is the first example of
Judicial Activism in
the West. Like Canadian Judicial Activists have done since
the Canadian Charter was created in 1982, the US Court in
Roe V Wade (1973) claimed the right to Rule against the
Legislative Houses the grounds of their Statues being
"un-Constitutional". This is the premise that the Legislatures
must work within the confines set by it's own Contract with it's
people, the US Constitution. Agreed. What made
Roe V Wade (1973) different was that a majority of the
Judges used powers granted them by Statute to enforce
WRITTEN bounds on
legislation to enforce the
JUDGE'S PERSONAL VIEWS
which they claimed to be operative though absent in the
written text of the US Constitution. Neither could these
newly "activist" Judges
demonstrate their Decision was in keeping with the practice of
previous Courts.
In the
Roe V Wade (1973) example, Justice
White noted the US Judiciary's hijacking of Legislative powers in his Dissenting Opinion,
"I
find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to
support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions
and announces a new constitutional right for
pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for
its action, invests that right with
sufficient substance to override most
existing state abortion statutes."
Roe
V Wade is possibly the first example of the
Judicial Mysticism we in Canada have seen with increasing
frequency since 1982 in the
Courts of
"Femi-Nazi"
Beverley Mclachlin. Mclachlin in
defending her policy of Judicial Activism refers to a "higher
power" to which Judges may refer when they are at odds with the
Statutes of the legislative bodies.
It is an interesting fact that a
philosophical basis for Judicial Activism and Abortion Activism
isn't hard to find. One of the original
Femi-Nazis
Margaret Sanger, the founder of
Planned Parenthood and
Adolf Hitler were both Believers in
Eugenics (directed Human Evolution) and shared many religious views, including the notion of a "Master Race"
(or is that Master Class, Beverly?).
More than likely both
Sanger &
Hitler would have subscribed to
Haeckel's,
Theory of "Phylogenic Recapitulation" , 1866,
(complete rubbish) to make their
objectives less repugnant to
the misguided observer. Haeckel's idea was that the
Evolutionary Path of embryo's Phylogeny (species) is
"Recapitulated" from fertilization to birth by moving through
a series of less evolved Species to increasingly more evolved
forms until birth. Haeckel's farcical drawings have been
widely distributed. You've no doubt seen them in your
schoolbooks.
Since at least
Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) we have
known each Species has a specified
Genetic Number - the number of genes in the haploid
cells (gametes)
provided by each parent, male and female. During
Fertilization these genes pair up, male genes to female genes,
and when all are paired, the newly
diploid cell can begin it's first division into body
cells. Barring a debilitating injury to the genetic
information,
genetic Number is a constant throughout a Species' lifespan,
including it's embryology.
The constancy of a
Specie's genetic number precludes
"Phylogenic Recapitulation". Consider also the
extraordinary variation of Genetic Number which is supposedly
"recapitulated" This is so huge a topic it would
take
pages and pages to itemize, nevertheless a few samples
follow in ascending
Chromosomal Number..
Family Canidae
(Dogs & Foxes)
39 pairs, 78 Chromosomes, Dog 17 pairs, 34 Chromosomes, Fox
It is impossible for any of these to be
"blood relatives" because their dissimilar
chromosomal numbers forever bar
them from having offspring together. They are similarly
barred from having a common ancestor. Set aside for the sake of argument, the
humanity of a human fetus. Forget the legal contrivance to
exonerate medical practitioners of criminal charges by deeming unborn children "Non-Persons"
until they have survived birth.
In
Canada the WRITTEN Charter Rights twice precludes discrimination
between Male and Female Parents. It is our contention that
Fathers already have the Statutory Right to equal participation in the care and fate of a
"fetus", whether you regard the unborn child as Person, Property,
or something in between.
The Natural Fathers' Consent must
therefore be obtained before the destruction of any unborn child
who is sadly unwanted by their Mother. Both Natural
Parents must be
participant in any parenting decision. Abortion is not just a
"Woman's issue" it is a Natural Parent's Issue.
The Abortion Veto
for Dads is a humane, gender neutral and
Constitutionally
required alternative to the 'Planned Parenthood" approach.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
