Politics – We Need A Law

Sex-selective abortion bill fails in House, but debate reignited

WNAL Staff — Thu, 03 Jun 2021 18:13:03 +0000

On June 2, 2021, Members of Parliament voted against Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act, preventing it from moving on to the committee stage for further study. Introduced by Saskatchewan MP Cathay Wagantall, the bill would have prohibited physicians from knowingly performing sex selective abortions – a practice that is disproportionately used to target girls.

While the result is obviously disappointing, there is also reason for thankfulness. The vote in the House was 248 – 82, meaning a quarter of Parliamentarians supported it. While the Bloc, Liberal, and NDP parties unanimously opposed the bill, a full two-thirds of the Conservative caucus supported it, as well as Independent MP Derek Sloan.

We Need a Law commends MP Wagantall for bringing the issue of sex selective abortion into the open. We had the opportunity to advance the conversation and see the first abortion bill in 15 years introduced in Parliament. During the debate on this bill, speakers from all parties indicated they opposed the practice of sex selective abortion. They were simply unwilling to take a stand.

Perhaps most encouraging, and proof that this conversation will not end here, is that we saw incredible support for this bill from Canadians across the country. MP Wagantall and her colleagues introduced dozens of petitions with well over ten thousand signatures over the past year in support of Bill C-233. During the lead-up to the debate, MP’s offices were flooded with thousands of empty pink envelopes from Canadians, each one representing a pre-born girl lost to abortion. MPs used these pink envelopes to highlight the issue on their own social media. We also saw pink flag displays and lawn signs pop up around the country in support of this bill.

It was evident in the debates that while Canadians are having ongoing conversations about abortion, elected lawmakers seem unprepared for it. In fact, they seemed angry about having to discuss the issue. Yet most Canadians support common sense abortion restrictions, including a restriction on sex selective abortion.

The debate around sex selective abortion is necessary and will continue. Women’s rights cannot include targeting women before they are born. Sex selective abortion is antithetical to Canada’s commitment to equality and needs to be prohibited as an unacceptable practice. Until MPs have the courage to prohibit this practice, it remains legal and will continue to happen in Canada.

So our political responsibility as pro-life Canadians continues.

Use this opportunity to build a relationship with your Member of Parliament. Find out how they voted and send them a quick email regarding the vote. If you’ve already contacted your MP, let them know you followed the unfolding of this bill, and leave them with a few words of encouragement for their task.

Find out how your MP voted

Aboultaif, Ziad – Yea
Aitchison, Scott – Nay
Albas, Dan – Nay
Alghabra, Omar – Nay
Alleslev, Leona – Nay
Allison, Dean – Yea
Anand, Anita – Nay
Anandasangaree, Gary – Nay
Angus, Charlie – Nay
Arnold, Mel – Yea
Arseneault, René – Nay
Arya, Chandra – Nay
Ashton, Niki – Nay
Atwin, Jenica – Nay
Bachrach, Taylor – Nay
Badawey, Vance – Nay
Bagnell, Larry – Nay
Bains, Navdeep – Nay
Baker, Yvan – Nay
Baldinelli, Tony – Yea
Barlow, John – Yea
Barrett, Michael – Yea
Barsalou-Duval, Xavier – Nay
Battiste, Jaime – Nay
Beaulieu, Mario – Nay
Beech, Terry – Nay
Bendayan, Rachel – Nay
Bennett, Carolyn – Nay
Benzen, Bob – Yea
Bergen, Candice – Yea
Bergeron, Stéphane – Nay
Berthold, Luc – Nay
Bérubé, Sylvie – Nay
Bessette, Lyne – Nay
Bezan, James – Yea
Bibeau, Marie-Claude – Nay
Bittle, Chris – Nay
Blaikie, Daniel – Nay
Blair, Bill – Nay
Blanchet, Yves-François – Nay
Blanchette-Joncas, Maxime – Nay
Blaney, Steven – Nay
Blaney, Rachel – Nay
Block, Kelly – Yea
Blois, Kody – Nay
Boudrias, Michel – Nay
Boulerice, Alexandre – Nay
Bragdon, Richard – Yea
Brassard, John – Yea
Bratina, Bob – Nay
Brière, Élisabeth – Nay
Brunelle-Duceppe, Alexis – Nay
Calkins, Blaine – Yea
Cannings, Richard – Nay
Carr, Jim – Nay
Carrie, Colin – Yea
Casey, Sean – Nay
Chabot, Louise – Nay
Chagger, Bardish – Nay
Champagne, François-Philippe – Nay
Champoux, Martin – Nay
Charbonneau, Louise – Nay
Chen, Shaun – Nay
Chiu, Kenny – Yea
Chong, Michael – Nay
Cooper, Michael – Yea
Cormier, Serge – Nay
Cumming, James – Nay
Dabrusin, Julie – Nay
Dalton, Marc – Yea
Damoff, Pam – Nay
Dancho, Raquel – Yea
Davidson, Scot – Nay
Davies, Don – Nay
DeBellefeuille, Claude – Nay
Deltell, Gérard – Nay
d’Entremont, Chris – Yea
Desbiens, Caroline – Nay
Desilets, Luc – Nay
Dhaliwal, Sukh – Nay
Dhillon, Anju – Nay
Diotte, Kerry – Yea

Doherty, Todd – Yea
Dong, Han – Nay
Dowdall, Terry – Yea
Dreeshen, Earl – Yea
Drouin, Francis – Nay
Dubourg, Emmanuel – Nay
Duclos, Jean-Yves – Nay
Duguid, Terry – Nay
Duncan, Eric – Nay
Duncan, Kirsty – Nay
Duvall, Scott – Nay
Dzerowicz, Julie – Nay
Easter, Wayne – Nay
Ehsassi, Ali – Nay
El-Khoury, Fayçal – Nay
Ellis, Neil – Nay
Epp, Dave – Yea
Erskine-Smith, Nathaniel – Nay
Falk, Ted – Yea
Falk, Rosemarie – Yea
Fast, Ed – Yea
Fergus, Greg – Nay
Fillmore, Andy – Nay
Findlay, Kerry-Lynne – Yea
Finnigan, Pat – Nay
Fisher, Darren – Nay
Fonseca, Peter – Nay
Fortier, Mona – Nay
Fortin, Rhéal – Nay
Fragiskatos, Peter – Nay
Fraser, Sean – Nay
Freeland, Chrystia – Nay
Fry, Hedy – Nay
Gallant, Cheryl – Yea
Garneau, Marc – Nay
Garrison, Randall – Nay
Gaudreau, Marie-Hélène – Nay
Gazan, Leah – Nay
Généreux, Bernard – Nay
Genuis, Garnett – Yea
Gerretsen, Mark – Nay
Gill, Marilène – Nay
Gladu, Marilyn – Yea
Godin, Joël – Nay
Gould, Karina – Nay
Gourde, Jacques – Nay
Gray, Tracy – Yea
Green, Matthew – Nay
Guilbeault, Steven – Nay
Hajdu, Patty – Nay
Hallan, Jasraj Singh – Yea
Harder, Rachael – Yea
Hardie, Ken – Nay
Harris, Jack – Nay
Hoback, Randy – Yea
Holland, Mark – Nay
Housefather, Anthony – Nay
Hughes, Carol – Nay
Hussen, Ahmed – Nay
Hutchings, Gudie – Nay
Iacono, Angelo – Nay
Ien, Marci – Nay
Jaczek, Helena – Nay
Jansen, Tamara – Yea
Jeneroux, Matt – Nay
Johns, Gord – Nay
Joly, Mélanie – Nay
Jones, Yvonne – Nay
Jordan, Bernadette – Nay
Jowhari, Majid – Nay
Julian, Peter – Nay
Kelloway, Mike – Nay
Kelly, Pat – Nay
Kent, Peter – Nay
Khalid, Iqra – Nay
Khera, Kamal – Nay
Kitchen, Robert – Yea
Kmiec, Tom – Yea
Koutrakis, Annie – Nay
Kram, Michael – Yea
Kurek, Damien – Yea
Kusie, Stephanie – Yea
Kusmierczyk, Irek – Nay

Kwan, Jenny – Nay
Lake, Mike – Yea
Lalonde, Marie-France – Nay
Lambropoulos, Emmanuella – Nay
Lametti, David – Nay
Lamoureux, Kevin – Nay
Larouche, Andréanne – Nay
Lattanzio, Patricia – Nay
Lauzon, Stéphane – Nay
Lawrence, Philip – Yea
LeBlanc, Dominic – Nay
Lebouthillier, Diane – Nay
Lefebvre, Paul – Nay
Lehoux, Richard – Nay
Lemire, Sébastien – Nay
Lewis, Chris – Yea
Liepert, Ron – Nay
Lightbound, Joël – Nay
Lloyd, Dane – Yea
Lobb, Ben – Yea
Long, Wayne – Nay
Longfield, Lloyd – Nay
Louis, Tim – Nay
Lukiwski, Tom – Yea
MacAulay, Lawrence – Nay
MacGregor, Alistair – Nay
MacKenzie, Dave – Yea
MacKinnon, Steven – Nay
Maguire, Larry – Nay
Maloney, James – Nay
Manly, Paul – Nay
Marcil, Simon – Nay
Martel, Richard – Nay
Martinez Ferrada, Soraya – Nay
Masse, Brian – Nay
Mathyssen, Lindsay – Nay
May, Elizabeth – Nay
May, Bryan – Nay
Mazier, Dan – Yea
McCauley, Kelly – Yea
McColeman, Phil – Yea
McCrimmon, Karen – Nay
McDonald, Ken – Nay
McGuinty, David – Nay
McKenna, Catherine – Nay
McKinnon, Ron – Nay
McLean, Greg – Nay
McLeod, Cathy – Nay
McLeod, Michael – Nay
McPherson, Heather – Nay
Melillo, Eric – Nay
Mendès, Alexandra – Nay
Mendicino, Marco – Nay
Michaud, Kristina – Nay
Miller, Marc – Nay
Monsef, Maryam – Nay
Moore, Rob – Yea
Morantz, Marty – Nay
Morrison, Rob – Nay
Morrissey, Robert – Nay
Motz, Glen – Yea
Murray, Joyce – Nay
Nater, John – Nay
Ng, Mary – Nay
Normandin, Christine – Nay
O’Connell, Jennifer – Nay
Oliphant, Robert – Nay
O’Regan, Seamus – Nay
O’Toole, Erin – Nay
Patzer, Jeremy – Yea
Paul-Hus, Pierre – Nay
Pauzé, Monique – Nay
Perron, Yves – Nay
Petitpas Taylor, Ginette – Nay
Plamondon, Louis – Nay
Poilievre, Pierre – Nay
Powlowski, Marcus – Nay
Qaqqaq, Mumilaaq – Nay
Qualtrough, Carla – Nay
Ratansi, Yasmin – Nay
Rayes, Alain – Nay
Redekopp, Brad – Yea
Regan, Geoff – Nay

Reid, Scott – Yea
Rempel Garner, Michelle – Nay
Richards, Blake – Nay
Robillard, Yves – Nay
Rodriguez, Pablo – Nay
Rogers, Churence – Nay
Romanado, Sherry – Nay
Rood, Lianne – Yea
Ruff, Alex – Nay
Sahota, Ruby – Nay
Sahota, Jag – Nay
Saini, Raj – Nay
Sajjan, Harjit S. – Nay
Saks, Ya’ara – Nay
Samson, Darrell – Nay
Sangha, Ramesh – Nay
Sarai, Randeep – Nay
Saroya, Bob – Yea
Savard-Tremblay, Simon-Pierre – Nay
Scarpaleggia, Francis – Nay
Scheer, Andrew – Yea
Schiefke, Peter – Nay
Schmale, Jamie – Yea
Schulte, Deb – Nay
Seeback, Kyle – Yea
Serré, Marc – Nay
Sgro, Judy A. – Nay
Shanahan, Brenda – Nay
Sheehan, Terry – Nay
Shields, Martin – Yea
Shin, Nelly – Yea
Shipley, Doug – Nay
Sidhu, Maninder – Nay
Sidhu, Sonia – Nay
Simard, Mario – Nay
Simms, Scott – Nay
Sloan, Derek – Yea
Sorbara, Francesco – Nay
Soroka, Gerald – Yea
Spengemann, Sven – Nay
Stanton, Bruce – Nay
Steinley, Warren – Yea
Ste-Marie, Gabriel – Nay
Strahl, Mark – Yea
Stubbs, Shannon – Yea
Sweet, David – Yea
Tabbara, Marwan – Nay
Tassi, Filomena – Nay
Therrien, Alain – Nay
Tochor, Corey – Yea
Trudeau, Justin – Nay
Trudel, Denis – Nay
Turnbull, Ryan – Nay
Uppal, Tim – Yea
Van Bynen, Tony – Nay
van Koeverden, Adam – Nay
Van Popta, Tako – Yea
Vandal, Dan – Nay
Vandenbeld, Anita – Nay
Vaughan, Adam – Nay
Vecchio, Karen – Nay
Vidal, Gary – Yea
Viersen, Arnold – Yea
Vignola, Julie – Nay
Virani, Arif – Nay
Vis, Brad – Yea
Wagantall, Cathay – Yea
Warkentin, Chris – Yea
Waugh, Kevin – Yea
Webber, Len – Nay
Weiler, Patrick – Nay
Wilkinson, Jonathan – Nay
Williamson, John – Yea
Wilson-Raybould, Jody – Nay
Wong, Alice – Yea
Yip, Jean – Nay
Young, Kate – Nay
Yurdiga, David – Yea
Zahid, Salma – Nay
Zann, Lenore – Nay
Zimmer, Bob – Yea
Zuberi, Sameer – Nay

We have some suggested messages below to get you started – feel free to copy and paste these into an email.

Sample 1: Yea vote

Dear [mp name],

Thank you for voting in favour of Bill C-233. I am grateful to have an MP who is willing to take a stand against sex selective abortion. While I’m disappointed the bill did not pass, I hope similar legislation can be reintroduced soon by you or one of your colleagues.

I wish you continued strength for your work and look forward to future engagement on a variety of issues.

With appreciation for your service to our community and our country,

Sample 2: Nay vote

Dear [mp name],

I was disappointed to see that you voted against Bill C-233 this week. The sex selective abortion act would have been a great step in recognizing that the majority of Canadians, including me, support some restrictions on abortion. It is time our country got in line with every other democratic country in the world by finding ways to protect pre-born children at some stage. If the opportunity to support a similar bill ever arises again, I hope you will reconsider your stance.

In the meantime, I continue to wish you all the best in your work and thank you for the time you give to serve our community and our country.

Not sure where to find your MP’s email address? Click here for a full list of MPs and access to their contact information.

Sex Selective Abortion Act’s first hour of debate in Parliament

WNAL Staff — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:29:56 +0000

On April 14, 2021, the Sex Selective Abortion Act had its first hour of debate in Parliament. For the first time in 15 years, Canadian politicians debated a bill that asks them to agree that abortion access has gone too far. MP Cathay Wagantall spoke passionately about the need for her bill, focusing on the strong consensus among Canadians on this issue and the need to value equality of the sexes from the earliest stages of life. She called on politicians across party lines to stand behind their claims of by supporting Bill C-233.

Liberal, NDP, and Bloc MPs also spoke to the bill, as did Wagantall’s Conservative colleague Karen Vecchio. The speeches from opposing parties were predictable in their pro-abortion arguments, but surprising in their extreme nature and vehemence. Rather than engage with Wagantall’s very specific bill, they seemed intent on maintaining the perception of abortion as an inherent good ignoring any common ground and maintaining this as a politically polarizing issue.

Conservative MP Karen Vecchio spoke to the intense emotions on both sides of the debate, expressing disappointment that some people come to the table with their ears already closed. This was very evident in some of the opposition speeches, as they used the time to promote abortion and even to seek to expand abortion access. While representatives of all parties expressed clear agreement that sex selective abortion is wrong, and has no place in Canada, they refused to support that truth with legislation.

Immediately after the debate we did a live debrief of how things went, and where we go from here. You can watch that on our Facebook page, or by clicking the image below.

We know there is a long journey ahead to pass legislation protecting pre-born children. This debate was evidence of the fear and animosity the pro-abortion movement displays when the status quo of unrestricted abortion is questioned even in a small way. But we also see momentum building, and we are energized and committed to working pro-life Canadians to make this country more pro-life, one step at a time.

For more information on Sex Selective Abortion, visit our Defend Girls campaign page.

WNAL joins press conference on Bill C-233 in Ottawa

WNAL Staff — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:51:35 +0000

On April 12, 2020, We Need a Law was honoured to join MP Cathay Wagantall at her press conference to introduce Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act. This private member’s bill seeks to prohibit sex selective abortion. We Need a Law has long advocated against sex-selective abortion, including through our ongoing Defend Girls campaign.

Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Tabitha Ewert, our legal counsel, at the press conference linked above.

Transcript of remarks by Tabitha Ewert

Canada has a rich history of taking seriously the recognition of human rights including the right to be treated equally regardless of sex. We know that at times, we have failed, but part of the beauty of this country is that we will not shy away from self-reflection asking how we ought to change the way we treat other especially those who may not naturally have a voice. We work to correct injustices. And we strive to treasure each and every human being as having equal dignity and worth not just through our words, but in fact.

Parliament has the opportunity to do just that by passing the Sex Selective Abortion Act.

Sex selective abortion is a blow to equality as it devalues a pre-born child just based on her sex. Just as our law prohibits this type of discrimination in other areas, and as equality between the sexes is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so our law should prohibit the discriminatory practice of sex selective abortion. We cannot as a country claim to strive for equality while ignoring discrimination that occurs at the earliest stages of life.

The fact that even one pre-born child is aborted because of her sex flies in the face of our commitment to equality. The reality that this is indeed happening in Canada requires action. It is a Canadian problem, and it requires a Canadian solution: like the Sex Selective Abortion Act.

I am so thankful for MP Wagantall’s leadership on this issue. For her understanding that if our goal is equality between the sexes that means standing up for all women especially those who cannot speak for themselves. I am thankful for her ability to identify this as an issue that Canadians can rally together in support of. As Canadians we can all agree that it is wrong to abort a girl simply because she is a girl. And I am thankful for her ability to find a way to give our medical professionals a tool to say no to performing sex selective abortions.

I am honoured to stand alongside MP Wagantall today as she works to protect pre-born girls from being targeted based on their sex. This bill will go a long way to ending this injustice here in Canada and it is an important step forward in this country.

Pink Envelope Campaign

WNAL Staff — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:07:53 +0000

Send a message to Members of Parliament about the issue of sex selective abortion through the Pink Envelope Campaign! All you need to do is buy pink envelopes (you’ll need 338 to reach every MP), and write a brief note on the back of each. If you can’t find pink envelopes, you can make your own as this supporter did!

Write a message on the back of the envelope. Here are a few examples:

This envelope is empty to represent a girl whose life was taken because Canada allows sex-selective abortion. Please support Bill C-233 to end this discriminatory practice in Canada.
This envelope represents one baby girl whose life was taken because of sex selective abortion. Sex selective abortion is wrong and it occurs in Canada because we have no law against it. Please support Bill C-233.
This envelope is empty and represents the life of a pre-born baby girl who lost her life because Canada allows sex selective abortion. Please support Bill C-233 to end this inequality in our country.

Mail every envelope you complete to a different MP. You can find the full list of MP names here. All the envelopes can be addressed with the MP’s name to the House of Commons address in Ottawa. For example:

MP NAME
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Postage is FREE to the House of Commons!

This is a great (indoor!) initiative for families, pro-life school clubs, Bible study groups, etc. to take on! These bright, impactful envelopes will alert MPs to the issue of sex selective abortion and encourage them to do something about it by supporting Bill C-233. To learn more about the bill we are asking them to support, visit DefendGirls.com.

[image_slider_no_space height=”450″ navigation_style=”dark” highlight_active_image=”yes” images=”4874,4869,4880,4879,4877,4875,4868,4873,4870,4871,4872″]

Support Nunavut MLA Patterk Netser

WNAL Staff — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:09:02 +0000

Support Nunavut MLA Patterk Netser who is facing backlash after expressing his pro-life beliefs.

What Happened?

MLA Netser made a post on his personal Facebook page containing pro-life viewpoints that caused controversy. This controversy has risen to the point that he has been stripped of his portfolio and the Nunavut legislature will vote tomorrow on whether to remove him from his cabinet position.

What Can You Do?

Reach out to Premier Joe Savikataaq and the other cabinet ministers by asking them not remove MLA Netser. We want to make sure we support pro-life politicians across Canada and do what we can to ensure they do not face political consequences for being pro-life.

The vote is tomorrow so we ask that you act now: please send a quick email to the Nunavut Legislature asking them not to remove MLA Netser.

How Can You Do It?

Just copy and paste the following addresses into your email and send a quick message. One or two lines is all that’s needed!

Email Premier Joe Savikataaq: jsavikataaq@gov.nu.ca;

CC the cabinet members: dakeeagok@gov.nu.ca; jehaloak@gov.nu.ca; ghickes@gov.nu.ca; djoanasie@gov.nu.ca; lkusugak@gov.nu.ca; esheutiapik@gov.nu.ca; patterknetser@aivilikmla.ca;pnetser1@gov.nu.ca

New Brunswick’s Clinic 554 is just an abortion activist ploy

WNAL Staff — Wed, 09 Sep 2020 03:54:59 +0000

A steady stream of abortion activist pressure continues to focus on a single, financially unstable clinic in New Brunswick. Clinic 554, a health clinic that has threatened to shut down unless the government funds their abortions, is considering a lawsuit against the provincial government. The incessant pressure from this clinic in a province that fully funds both the abortion pill and abortions in hospitals shows a political game at play where pre-born children are the biggest losers. Despite the current COVID-19 context, and now an upcoming provincial election, this clinic continues to push.

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.

Erin O’Toole has opportunity to allow pro-life debate

WNAL Staff — Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:36:56 +0000

On August 23, Erin O’Toole was elected as the new leader of the Conservative party. While O’Toole has made it clear that he does not intend to introduce abortion legislation, his victory gives a lot of room for the pro-life movement to work thanks to his commitment not to squash debate among his party members.

During the leadership campaign, Mr. O’Toole said that freedom for MPs on conscience issues is a fundamental part of the Conservative party. We encourage you to send a short note of congratulations to Mr. O’Toole and include a reminder of his responsibility to protect the human rights of all human beings. His email is Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca.

The success of Dr. Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan shows that Mr. O’Toole needs to ensure that the Conservative Party makes room for and respects the pro-lifers that assisted in getting him elected as leader. Those who voted for Lewis and Sloan were very influential in getting Mr. O’Toole the support needed to win on the third ballot.

During the leadership race, Dr. Leslyn Lewis modeled how politicians should be speaking about pro-life policy. She put forward four policies that are all in line with both Conservative party policy and with popular opinion: banning the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion, protecting women from coerced abortions, increasing support for pregnancy care centres, and ending funding for international abortions.

Mr. O’Toole would do well to learn from Dr. Lewis’ clear policy proposals that obviously resonated with Conservatives and have the ability to unite Canadians. He has an immediate opportunity to do so with Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act, a private member’s bill introduced by his colleague Cathay Wagantall. With no legal framework around abortion, Canada is silently condoning the practice of aborting girls solely because they are girls. This is something we should be ashamed of, and not something that Mr. O’Toole can continue to ignore.

We look forward to working with Members of Parliament and grassroots supporters to ensure legislation that advances pre-born human rights is introduced and debated at the earliest opportunity.

It is time for Canada to get in line with our international counterparts by regulating abortion and protecting pre-born human rights. We are the only country in the world with no restrictions on abortion, and that needs to change. We look forward to seeing how Erin O’Toole participates in this ongoing debate.

Nova Scotia bubble zone law will not help women

WNAL Staff — Thu, 05 Mar 2020 16:48:14 +0000

Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Act – Bill 242, a private member’s bill in Nova Scotia, seeks to establish “bubble zones” around abortion clinics. This would prohibit pro-life speech on public streets. The activities targeted by this bill are not about protecting the safety of anyone or about ensuring accessing abortion. Rather this bill is all about targeting pro-life speech and trying to silence it.

This law, if passed, prohibits “interference” around an abortion clinic. But interference is not defined as physical aggression, but by its content. The definition includes simply informing people (Section (2)(f)(iii)). It does not target certain ways of informing people. Nor does it target misinformation. Rather it prohibits any information about abortion. Beyond the obvious Charter freedom of expression issues, in what way does the Nova Scotia government think it is improving the life of its citizens by banning information?

It goes on to ban “protest” (Section 2(j)). Again, it is not the nature of the protest that is prohibited, but the content – specifically banning only one side of the abortion issue. Consider this scenario: two people could be standing next to each other, one with a sign that says, “I regret my abortion” and one with a sign that says “I do not regret my abortion”. Under Bill 242, only the pro-life sign is illegal. What reason does a government have to say all pro-life speech, regardless of how peacefully presented, needs to be banned on certain public streets?

This does nothing to help women. Shielding women from information regarding the humanity of her pre-born child or from information regarding options she might have does not help her. Nor does pretending that as country we are all ambivalent to her choice help her. We care about her and the life of her pre-born child. Women deserve to know this.

But this law suggests that women are incapable of handling this. Nova Scotian women do not need protection from information and beliefs they may disagree with. Protecting women’s rights cannot include fining and imprisoning other women who are pro-life. Yet, that is what this bill does. It says to women who disagree about the morality of abortion, and want to express that belief, that their freedom of expression does not matter.

If you live in Nova Scotia we are asking you to write your MLA encouraging them not to support this law, but to stand for the free expression of the pro-life message.

New Brunswick not required to fund private abortions

WNAL Staff — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 04:59:22 +0000

The Canada Health Act Annual Report was tabled last week by Minister of Health Patty Hajdu, and New Brunswick received its full transfer despite refusing to fund private abortion clinic 554.

While provinces have full jurisdiction to regulate and fund health care, the federal government gives them financial assistance if they meet the criteria laid out in the Canada Health Act. Pro-abortion activists insist that this means funding abortion in every case, but New Brunswick has chosen to only fund abortions performed in hospitals. This is completely within their right as a province, and it is good to see the federal government’s full financial assistance acting as tacit approval of their decision.

We will need to continue to remind the government of this, however, as Minister Hajdu devoted a portion of her report to discussing abortion, specifically mentioning the New Brunswick situation. She states that “Health Canada continues to consult with the health ministries of New Brunswick and Ontario on this issue.”

New Brunswick can and should push back against any meddling in their health care decisions. With limited resources, the question should always be asked: why should they fund private abortion instead of other legitimate health care needs, such as dentistry and mental health needs, which are also not currently covered?

As we said in our recent Position Paper on the topic of Canada Health Act funding, “Abortion, an elective procedure, should not be prioritized as something to be funded in every situation or at every gestational age. Private abortion clinics should not be a funding priority or requirement.”

How should the pro-life movement approach the CPC leadership race?

WNAL Staff — Sat, 11 Jan 2020 22:52:04 +0000

Canadians are watching with a keen eye as candidates for leader of the Conservative Party declare their intentions. This includes pro-life Canadians who want to know what a future leader is willing to do about Canada’s complete lack of abortion restrictions.

Generally, it is assumed that this means they are carefully scrutinizing each leadership hopeful for whether they are “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, but the time has come for the pro-life movement to view things a bit differently.

What do we mean by that?

It means that we don’t necessarily need a leadership candidate to champion the issue, or even be identified as pro-life. Pro-lifers who are involved in the Conservative Party shouldn’t automatically dismiss a candidate who isn’t personally pro-life. Pro-life Conservatives should be less concerned about whether a future leader looks like them and more concerned about whether he or she realizes that pro-life conservatives make up an integral part of the party’s base.

The pro-life movement was instrumental in Andrew Scheer’s successful leadership bid, and has the potential to play a large part in the upcoming race. We are motivated, organized, and politically engaged. Through the work of organizations such as RightNow and Campaign Life Coalition the pro-life movement has become very efficient at nominating and electing candidates. A successful leadership candidate needs support from the pro-life movement. Pulling out tired lines like ‘not re-opening the debate’ or claiming that abortion is a ‘settled issue’ in Canada could be detrimental to a leadership campaign.

With Canada’s brokerage party system, the likelihood of a leader in a mainstream party who is willing to introduce abortion legislation is not very high. It’s understandable that a potential Prime Minister is not going to run on this issue. What we as the pro-life movement should be looking for is a leader who understands that the abortion debate is ongoing and who will allow individual MPs to introduce bills or motions that address the current legal void around abortion.

The Conservative Party of Canada has pro-life MPs, pro-life staffers, pro-life volunteers, pro-life members, and pro-life donors. Leadership hopefuls cannot ignore them if they want to unite the party or win the next election.