Welcome
Kathy Clubb

Kathy Clubb

Founder and Editor of The Freedoms Project

Kathy has been active in pro-life work for 6 years and is involved in a constitutional challenge to Victoria’s exclusion-zone laws. She is the Melbourne co-ordinator for Family Life International and is a member of the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. Kathy began writing about pro-life and Catholic issues at Light up the Darkness.net but broadened her range of topics as she came to learn more about the many threats to freedom which are common to all Christians. She is working on a Sociology degree. Very slowly. Kathy home-educates her youngest 7 children and considers her family to be her most important work.

Monday, 14 May 2018 21:26

Preaching to an Intolerant Choir

Israel Folau is known for being one of the best rugby players in Australia. Folau is also a practising Christian who isn't afraid to give his opinion and express his religious views. He has been under fire recently - to the point of being accused of hate crimes - for publicly stating that homosexuality is a sin. Wayne Smith, of the Australian, complained that Israel Folau should stop 'preaching' if he wants to keep playing football. Former rugby player, George Gregan, agreed and suggested that it is inappropriate for Folau to put his beliefs on a huge platform - despite those beliefs being shared by millions of people, of many diverse religious persuasions.

By now, many of you will be familiar with the massive Save the 8th! campaign, mounted by Ireland's pro-life community. Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland, except under very few circumstances. On May 25th, a referendum will be held in Ireland to determine whether or not to repeal the constitution's 8th Amendment, adopted in 1983: protection of the unborn child. The mainstream media has, on the whole, supported the pro-abortion side, concentrating on the fact that many Irish women travel to England in order to procure abortions. However, this 'need' to travel simply shows that Irish women have been sold the same lie that is being spread around the world: a mistimed pregnancy will ruin women's lives.

Friday, 27 April 2018 10:17

Medical Tyranny and Parental Authority

It seems that most of the globe has been holding its breath in anticipation of the outcome of baby Alfie's case. Articles and updates have been shared tens of thousands of times, with some social media commenters writing that they couldn't sleep for worry about the little boy. Young mothers, friends of mine, have been crying and praying for Alfie and his family, knowing how they would feel in a similar situation. This morning, we have the news that Alfie will be returning home with his parents; a statement read by his father, praising the Alder Hey hospital, has been likened to a hostage note. As a parent, the most worrying aspect of the Alfie Evans case is that I may one day be in a position where I won't be able to make decisions about my children.

All sources used in this article are either medical or secular, so there can be no accusation of a pro-life bias. Abortion providers and advocates are very eager these days to push Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (or LARCS) onto their patients. There have been more than a few studies on their use and uptake, with an abundance of advice for practitioners on how to increase their sales. It's been of particular interest to me, to note that abortion providers are very keen to fit women with LARCS right after an abortion.

Abortionist Leah Torres is no stranger to controversy. She has a huge following on twitter and actively advocates for abortion, while educating - according to her personal brand of science - on the dangers of pregnancy. Last week, she drew heavy criticism from within and without the pro-life community for her comments about her abortion technique: "You know babies can't scream, right? I transect the cord first so there's really no opportunity. If they're even far enough along to have a larynx." Although like many others, I concluded that Torres was referring to the vocal cords, she says she was actually referring to the umbilical cord. [See Dave Pellowe's article and interview with Leah Torres here.] And, while umbilical cord transection is a technique that is sometimes used for second-trimester abortions, it has mixed outcomes for mothers. In any case, it seems irrelevant which cord is being cut: umbilical, vocal or spinal; for the abortionist, they all lead to the result they're after: a dead baby.  

Friday, 16 March 2018 15:58

Thought Police thwarted in the ACT

Three Canberra men were recently acquitted of the charge of violating an abortuary exclusion-zone. Kerry Mellor, John Popplewell, and Ken Clancy, have witnessed outside the Marie Stopes facility for many years. After a protest-free exclusion-zone was introduced in 2016, they continued to engage in quiet, personal prayer, which they believed did not constitute a protest. The prosecution had argued that praying constituted 'a protest, by any means', although a security guard who was called as a witness conceded that the men's prayer was silent.

Buzzfeed's Gina Rushton recently published an article which attempted to discredit the work of pro-lifers in Perth. [Click here to read the article]. As well as providing the entertainment value that pro-aborts derive from mocking the pro-life community, the article added fuel to the fire of those pushing for exclusion-zones. As covered in other articles on this site, eg this one, there is a global movement by abortion providers to try to shut down prayerful witness outside abortion facilities. Without exception, this movement relies on a false premise for its momentum: the lie that pro-lifers 'harass' and 'intimidate' women. An integral part of this lie is the idea that pro-lifers tell nothing but falsehoods, while abortion providers tell nothing but the truth. And the media plays a very large part in promulgating these lies.  

[With the Tasmanian elections to be held in just over a week, voters are doing their due diligence in order to make a moral choice at the polls. That task is quite difficult, given that abortion is part of the platform of two major parties, and permanently pencilled-in by the third.

Not content with killing babies, traumatising parents and harvesting body parts, abortion providers are always looking at new strategies to inhibit the work of the pro-life community or to bolster their income. For of course, every baby saved from abortion means a slimmer pay-packet for the abortionist and his staff. In Australia, that could mean a loss of around $600 for a first-trimester abortion and up to $7700 for a late-term abortion. So it's little wonder that abortionists are eager to have special laws created in order to get women to keep those appointments. One example is the profusion of bubble-zone laws that have sprung up in recent years. In a western liberal democracy, we should be very concerned when the government enacts laws that target one specific group of people. Laws should be created solely to target behaviour, not groups or organisations. But exclusion-zone laws in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do just that. 

It never ceases to amaze me that comments such as "keep your legs closed" or "keep it in your pants" still pop up under articles about abortion in this day and age. Last week's article by Richard Grant about Tanya Plibersek, and her calls for uniform laws to make abortion more readily available, attracted many comments like this. Obviously, I can see the hypocrisy and share the outrage of our readers, but honestly, can't we come up with more constructive comments that express the reality of the situation, and not just one crudely-worded aspect related to unplanned pregnancies? [The same goes for such comments as "They (abortion advocates) should be aborted" or calls for 'retrospective' abortions.]