This is one of the arguments we are making before an Ontario court this June as an intervener in the Guelph and Area Right to Life v the City of Guelph case. The facts of this case are straightforward: the City took down three pro-life bus advertisements after Ad Standards issued opinions that they were inaccurate.
You may remember our interactions with Ad Standards in relation to our billboards and bus ads that said, “Canada has no abortion law.” In that instance, Ad Standards admitted the ads were true, but claimed there was a “general impression” of inaccuracy. Ad Standards has a long history of issuing befuddling and contradictory opinions regarding pro-life advertisements. This has been a thorn in the side of the pro-life movement because advertisers, including the City of Guelph, defer to these opinions even though Ad Standards has no legal authority.
The case coming up in June is between Guelph and Area Right to Life and the City of Guelph. There are also three secondary groups, including us, who are going to present legal arguments as interveners. These secondary groups have been granted the opportunity to speak to the case because the court recognizes that the result of this case could greatly impact others. This case involves interpreting our fundamental freedoms in the Charter and how they apply to advertising. Groups like We Need a Law are affected because we also use advertising to communicate the pro-life message.
As an intervener, we aren’t covering all of the arguments relevant to this case but are confining ourselves to one fundamental issue: the limitations of Ad Standards. In this case, the City of Guelph substantially relied on Ad Standards’ opinions to remove the pro-life advertisements. We argue this is constitutionally inappropriate for two main reasons.
First, Ad Standards does not consider the Charter in their opinions. Ad Standards is a private body issuing opinions generally on commercial advertisements. Their opinions are not subject to the Charter, nor do they even list freedom of expression as one of their values. They simply lack expertise in freedom of expression law. The City, however, as a government actor, has the obligation to ensure that freedom of expression is not unduly limited. They cannot abdicate that responsibility by relying on a private body.
Second, Ad Standards is unqualified to arbitrate the abortion debate. Canada is having an ongoing conversation about abortion with passionate advocates on either side. In order to give full meaning to freedom of expression, the City needs to ensure that one side of the debate is not silenced by the other. But Ad Standards does not have that obligation and there is no evidence that they are not being hijacked by activist-instigated complaints.
In short, we argue that the City’s substantial reliance on Ad Standards in this decision was unacceptable and renders this an unjustifiable infringement of freedom of expression.
We submitted our written arguments on May 17th and we look forward to presenting oral arguments on June 15th. We’re thrilled to be able to argue for the freedom to express the pro-life message and we’re especially grateful to Guelph and Area Right to Life for expressing that message in their city. Legal cases that involve protecting our freedom to speak don’t happen unless we are using our voice. We appreciate all the Canadians out there, including our supporters, who faithfully strive to do so.
We will keep you updated as the case progresses, and we encourage you to keep using your voice to faithfully witness in your community. Not just because you have the freedom to speak, but because the world around us has the freedom and the need to hear the message that every life is a gift and should be protected.
In London, ON, a local group called ARPA Oxford purchased ads on city buses using the same message. The ads were pulled mid-contract when the London Transit Commission was advised by Ad Standards to do so. This unjust decision needed challenging.
We are thankful to announce that a legal settlement has now been reached with the London Transit Commission, and the bus ads are back in operation for 45 days!
Unexpectedly, these ads go back up on buses at exactly the same time that the city is facing conflict over pro-life flyers featuring abortion victim photography that have been distributed by the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Those seeing the flyers may now also see our message, and be confronted with the truth that those discarded, mutilated pre-born children have absolutely no legal protection in Canada.
The re-running of these bus ads is a win-win situation. The pro-life movement is able to use their freedom to express their beliefs in London, and the city of London proves itself to be a place that does not shut down discussion on contentious issues, but respects the Charter guarantee of freedom of pro-life expression. The majority of Canadians still believe we have some law restricting abortion, at least in the later stages of pregnancy. Many Canadians support the status quo without knowing what they are actually supporting. We need to move past ignorance and apathy to understanding and emotion. The truth of these ads, that Canada has no abortion law, is fundamental to discussions around abortion in Canada.
This victory is also a reminder to continue to make use of the freedoms we have here in Canada. We have a Charter protected right to freedom of expression, and we need to keep insisting that pro-life expression be included in that freedom. We don’t know how much freedom we have until we use it, and we don’t know how long that freedom will last if we don’t commit to using it.
We live in a time when a lot of hard conversations need to happen. The conversation around when human rights begin is one of those issues that needs to be heard from all perspectives. It is our hope that all Canadians will continue to engage with the ongoing conversation about abortion.
Clinic owner Dr. Adrian Edgar claims that the government is breaking the law by failing to pay for his clients’ abortions. His proposed lawsuit is based on the inaccurate claim that the New Brunswick government is breaching the Canada Health Act. This is not a sound legal argument. It is the provinces who have full jurisdiction to regulate and fund health care – not the federal government.
The Canada Health Act was passed in 1985 as a vehicle for the federal government to help provinces with additional health care funding, but not at the expense of provincial jurisdiction over administering health care. The purpose of the federal government’s involvement was never to make every province’s health care plan the same, but to help foot the bill to ensure that some basics are covered across the country. Many aspects of health care, from dentistry to mental health care to physiotherapy, are not covered.
Abortion is an elective procedure and need not be funded by provinces. All provinces fund abortions in hospitals, New Brunswick included, but New Brunswick has never funded abortions done in private abortion clinics. They have still always received full financial assistance from the federal government for health care because they are compliant with the Canada Health Act.
It is not New Brunswick’s health care needs that are causing this clinic to continue the fight, and it is not the people of New Brunswick calling for the funding. It is Clinic 554’s ideological focus and their bottom line at stake. The case is being made by a man directly set to profit from any additional funding. Clinic 554 has been in this position of threatening to close before, but carried on when their demands were not met. After failing again to get Premier Higgs to fund their business, they turned to the federal government to exert pressure, and now threaten to turn to the courts.
Federal government interference in this matter would be overreach – and Premier Higgs has rightly spoken out against that pressure. If the federal government interferes in provincial health care matters when those matters are fully in line with the law and the Canada Health Act, provincial jurisdiction is nothing more than a condescending joke. Our courts should be protecting our constitution, not bending to activist pressure.
Public health care was never intended to cover every single health-related expense a person could incur. Abortion is covered in every Canadian province, including New Brunswick, as is the abortion pill for those who want even easier access and a do-it-yourself approach. A private clinic that threatens the government and does not even report the number of abortions it performs annually should not be prioritized or required when distributing limited health care dollars.
Kristen Beaton worked as a continuing care assistant and was on her way to see a client when she was killed. She was pregnant with her second child. Her obituary describes her devotion to her born son: “Kris’s greatest accomplishment in her short life was her son Daxton. Kris loved that boy more than life itself.” The obituary also notes the death of the 23rd victim – “her unborn, baby Beaton”.
Her husband Nick Beaton talked to the media in an emotional video about his unborn son, noting that they hadn’t had the chance to tell family yet. “We were going to tell them this week when she was on vacation. Our [3-year-old] son Daxton was going to wear a shirt that let everybody know…he cowardly, extremely cowardly, took my wife’s life and our unborn baby,” Nick said.
Our hearts go out to the people of Nova Scotia and especially to the families of the victims. We remember that each and every one of the victims was a human life with inherent value and a gift to those around them. This includes the 23rd victim whom reports fail to recognize – baby Beaton.
Learn more about the ongoing failure of Canadian law to recognize pre-born victims of crime.
NDP MLA Marie Renaud had put forward pro-abortion Motion 506, urging the government to review access to abortion services in Alberta, and take action to “remove barriers” to abortion across the province.
We asked you last week to engage with your MLA on this issue. Hundreds of you did so, and we are again humbled by the efforts of our supporters. These calls and emails do not go unnoticed by the Legislature, on either side of the debate. When introducing her motion, Ms. Renaud included this: “I’m sure that each of your offices has been bombarded by targeted e-mail campaigns from organized groups right across the country because that’s what they do.”
She’s not wrong. Targeted email campaigns are a great way to remind legislators that the people are watching, and have a vested interest in the decisions made at the government level. These calls to contact your MLA show them just how much people care; that they are willing to take time and effort to engage when they are made aware of the issue.
Ms. Renaud said she was bringing forward Motion 506 because of her belief in human rights and the “right of a woman to control her body and her future …It doesn’t matter why women make those choices, and women should never be forced to share those stories, those very personal stories about why they did. Whether it was about their health, whether it was about economics, whether it was about their age, it really doesn’t matter.” She ignores the stories shared by post-abortive women who regret their abortions and also wrongly cites abortion as a Charter right under the 1988 Morgentaler case, though such a right was never granted in that case.
One MLA who spoke against the Motion was Ms. Glasgo, who stood boldly for her pro-life beliefs. Glasgo said, “It is my personal conviction that all human life is sacred and should be protected. I am unapologetically and unreservedly pro life and my constituents were aware of this when they sent me to this place.”
Glasgo also praised pro-life Albertans for their commitment to helping the pre-born and women, especially through crisis pregnancy centres. In a time when these centres are often slandered, it is encouraging to hear an elected representative give them the credit they deserve. She said,
“These Albertans are compassionate. They give generously to agencies for mothers experiencing a crisis pregnancy. They support families. They objectively and without judgment counsel young women, praying for them and giving them shelter and other necessities. They set up programs and centres that help young mothers get back on their feet no matter their choice. They work to make life better for women and families in times of great need.”
She was not alone in opposing the motion. Motion 506 was soundly defeated, with a vote of 43-11. The discussion focused, as it should, on actual health care concerns for women and the need to end the use of abortion as a political tool.
We are thankful to see this motion die here, with the Albertan government taking a clear stance against increasing abortion access in the province. Let this be an encouragement also to those who communicated with their MLA that your voice was heard and well-represented. Pre-born children need our voices, and our leaders’ voices, and we can bring those together to even greater effect.
If your MLA voted against this motion, send a follow-up note thanking them for their vote. Here is the list of MLAs who voted against Motion 506:
The Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, which was passed in 2017, allows for hospitals that perform abortions to apply for a 150-metre “safe access” zone, also referred to as bubble zones.
Now, we are excited to share with you that the hospital has issued an official letter to both the pro-abortion and pro-life groups indicating that they will not be seeking a bubble zone around the hospital. In announcing their decision not to apply for this “safe access” zone, the Windsor Regional Hospital cited their commitment to balancing freedom of expression with patient care and privacy.
This decision recognizes the right to freedom of speech, as well as the reality that bubble zones do nothing to protect women. All these censored zones do is prevent women from seeing a pro-life witness and possibly accessing help and support, which at least two women have done in the time 40 Days for Life has been there.
Every woman deserves to know the truth about abortion. Every woman deserves access to support and another, better choice. Thankfully, no hospital in Ontario has yet been granted one of these “safe access” zones, and one less hospital will be applying for one.
]]>
Many in Canada were surprised by the acceptance of the law in New York, but, in a video from the Christian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPPS), Dr. Laura Lewis points out that it makes New York no different from Canada. With no abortion law in Canada’s criminal code, viable babies can be aborted at any point if a doctor is found willing to do it.
It is important to note, in the context of late-term abortion, that there is no medical reason to abort a baby in the third trimester to save the life of the mother. If health concerns arose, the baby could be delivered prematurely and cared for in the best way possible, a much different approach than deliberately killing the baby in the womb.
Dr. Lewis also stresses the caution needed in assuming the value of a human life based on a prenatal diagnosis. These diagnoses, which generally come to light later in pregnancy, are often the reason cited for choosing late-term abortion. This vastly underestimates the contributions and lives of those with disabilities, as well as ignoring the high rate of inaccurate diagnoses.
Canadians should never look at New York and feel superior. We set the example they chose to follow, of complete disregard for human life in the womb. There is no good reason for this disregard there, and no good reason for it here. That is why we continue working to change hearts and minds on the value of human life in its earliest stages, and to impress on our elected leaders their responsibility to defend children in the womb.
Read our position paper on why abortion is never medically necessary, and should never be considered health care.
]]>When it comes to irony, one prominent theme gets first place. Abortion activist Joyce Arthur raised concerns that the film Unplanned could incite viewers to violence against abortion providers, and her quote to the effect ran in nearly every piece of news coverage prior to the film’s release. After it’s release, this theme continued full force. In fact, however, the movie was not run in some locations due to threats of violence by abortion activists. This is much more in line with recent history, as pro-life activists have come under assault by abortion activists.
One might be excused for their confusion when Joyce Arthur’s organization, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, had a post on their Facebook page this week about theater workers’ rights. After staying silent on the threats, they speak up for an employee unhappy that she has been told not to share her pro-abortion views while selling tickets. This anonymous employee now feels traumatized and unsafe at work. They say, and I quote, “We are very concerned about worker’s rights, and what it means to have a safe workplace.” 
I’m confused. Do they care about worker’s rights, or don’t they? Does it depend on the worker, and their beliefs? Because pro-lifers care about human life, full stop. Race, gender, religion, morals, employment – none of these come into play when declaring the inherent value of human life. For abortion activists, the dehumanizing of pre-born children seems to have extended in their thinking to born humans as well: some are simply more worthy of protection than others.
Aside from theoretical physical violence, journalist Barry Hertz writes that “[i]n a climate where the rights of women are being actively rolled back …this movie feels particularly weaponized.” Well yes, this film is being used in the fight against complacency, apathy, and evil. The fact that it is recognized as a weapon indicates the awareness that we are in a battle when it comes to the abortion debate.
Hertz continues: “Those who want to deny women abortions may genuinely believe a murder is taking place, or they may just be driven to control women’s bodies.” These are two very different reasons for wanting to end abortions. It matters very much which one is true. Does Hertz, or anyone in favour of abortion, keep their mind open to the possibility that a murder actually is happening when an abortion is performed?
Then there are the accusations of inaccuracy. Even a biased watching of the film, and the most basic awareness of Planned Parenthood as an organization, should have put these arguments to rest. Planned Parenthood was willing to fight Abby Johnson with all they had. They had nothing, and a court recognized that in less than an hour. They still have nothing. This film isn’t the first we’ve heard from Abby Johnson: she wrote a book by the same title, Unplanned, and if it had been slanderous or libelous, or in any way dangerous to women or wildly inaccurate about the truth of abortion, Planned Parenthood would have shut it down long before it ever got to the big screen.
The truth is, biographical stories aside, abortion is bloody and ugly, and ends the life of a weaker human being for the benefit of a stronger human being. Those who value life have always valued information because science has always been on their side. The abortion propaganda machine paints itself as the protector of women’s rights, while simultaneously trying to deny them full information. Never has this been clearer than right now, in their panicked reaction to a fringe film that shows both a chemical and a surgical abortion for exactly what they are.
]]>The article opens with this line: “When young women use abortion services, the adolescent men who avoid becoming teenaged fathers go on to have better educational and financial futures than peers who do become teen fathers.”
With this, it continues, “As we see more abortion restrictions being passed across many states, it’s important to consider the potential broader consequence of these restrictions,” said lead study author Bethany Everett of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.”
It seems young men go further in school and make more money if they don’t have to take responsibility for their children at a young age. So, for the social good, a young woman should consider killing her baby so the man who fathered it can be more successful.
Tell me again how abortion is about women’s liberation and equality?
Cineplex responded on Twitter: “As a film exhibitor we provide our guests with movie choices. We believe it is up to the public to decide whether they would like to see a particular film and our guests can give voice to their views and opinions at the box office by buying a ticket to a movie or not.”
Basically, they support freedom of speech because, business.
A few days after that tweet, Cineplex shared an open letter better supporting their decision to show the film. President and CEO Ellis Jacob stood behind his company’s decision to show such a controversial film, referencing the kind of nation we would be if we didn’t allow dissenting voices to be heard.
Having this movie shown in Canada is having a significant impact on the public discourse about abortion. Pro-choice politicians and advocacy groups alike are scared. They realize that the abortion movement is built on euphemisms, distractions, and rhetoric. So, they also realize that a film that shows the ugly, horrible reality of abortion has the power to change people’s minds, to upset the status quo that is already on increasingly wobbly legs.
Attempts at censorship, even violent threats to try to stop the showings, has made the film big news, and made more people want to watch it! Unplanned will be shown in only a handful of theatres across Canada, and only for a single week. As movie releases go, that is barely a blip. But supporters and opponents both know how long that week can be.
If you are able, go see Unplanned at the location closest to you! You can find a list of locations where it is playing here.
*A note to use discretion if you’re considering bringing children to this movie. In the United States, the movie was rated “R”, while in Canada the ratings range as low as PG, depending on the province.
]]>