On a beautiful warm day in June in Eastern Europe, a husband and wife were on their way to the hospital, eagerly anticipating the arrival of their second child. The baby was making his appearance a bit early, but the parents weren’t too concerned – surely the doctors and nurses would be able to help if there were any challenges with his slightly early birth.

Labour progressed in the usual fashion, and their months of anticipation were finally rewarded with the birth of a little boy. Mother and father caught a glimpse of him as the doctor brought him to the table to check him over. He was tiny, but they could hear him yell with a healthy cry. They smiled at each other while they waited for their son to be brought back to them.

But the doctor remained at the table with their son for quite a while. Anxiety began to creep into their hearts. What was taking so long? Their first child had been handed back to them in a matter of minutes. The doctor called a nurse, and after a brief low conversation, the baby was whisked out of the room. Their hearts sank – something was clearly not right.

The doctor came over to the parents and shared the news. “I’m terribly sorry. Your baby has Down syndrome. You don’t want to take this baby home. We will bring him to the home for children with medical needs. They will be able to give him the care he needs – you can’t do that at home. These children have all kinds of troubles and are a burden to their families.  They don’t live very long, and they can’t accomplish anything meaningful in life. You don’t want that for yourselves and your child at home. Go home, and maybe someday you will have another healthy child.”

With tears streaming down their faces and hearts broken in a thousand pieces, the mother and father accepted what the doctor said, signed away their parental rights, and left their son in the care of the medical staff. He would be raised in an orphanage, separated from his family and from contact with the outside world.

As you read this, you may feel outraged. How could the doctor be so presumptuous?  How could he tell the parents that they couldn’t raise their own son, and not even give them a chance to try?  Why didn’t he share more accurate information with them?  Didn’t he know that people with Down syndrome can live joyful, meaningful lives? What an awful tragedy for the family and their little son. Aren’t we thankful we live in Canada, where people with disabilities are given support and opportunities!

But consider the story of another family.

It is a beautiful warm day in June in Ontario. A husband and wife are on their way to meet with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, about halfway through their pregnancy with their second child. At the ultrasound a week ago they had been delighted to see their little unborn son kicking and waving, his heart beating strongly. But then a couple days later their obstetrician had called. Something wasn’t right with the baby’s heart – there was a hole in the middle. It could be repaired, but this kind of defect was common in babies with Down syndrome. He would refer her to a specialist and arrange for further testing.

With her head spinning, the mother left his office confused and heart broken. Down syndrome?  She had some vague memories of a child in her community with Down syndrome, but she didn’t really know anything about him. What kind of life did people with Down syndrome have? What would this mean for their family? She could feel the baby kick and squirm, and her heart sank.  What was going to happen to him? The world can be a hard place – was this child headed for a life of suffering? Was it cruel to bring him into the world? The husband and wife cried together and counted down the days until their meeting with the specialist.

And now they are sitting in the specialist’s office, awaiting the results of the testing. The doctor walks in with a handful of papers, sits down and says, “I’m terribly sorry. The fetus has Down syndrome. We can book an appointment for a termination right away. People with Down syndrome have all kinds of struggles and don’t live very long.  They can’t accomplish much, and they are a burden to their families. You don’t want this for yourselves or your family. But you are young still – you can try again and have another healthy child. Now, let me call my secretary and she’ll book you in for a termination in a day or two.”  And, blindsided and stunned, with tears streaming down their faces and hearts broken in a thousand pieces, the parents sign the consent form presented for a termination.

That is the experience of many families in Canada when they receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. And the vast majority will choose to terminate the life of their unborn child, believing it to be better for themselves, their families, and even the child.

But consider a different version of the same story.

The expectant couple sit together, anxiously anticipating the doctor’s arrival and the results of their testing. The doctor opens the door with his hands full of papers, and some brochures, and a book. He sits down and says, “I have your test results, and it looks like your child has Down syndrome. Let me give you some information about that. Here is a book written by parents of children with Down syndrome. Here is some information about common medical issues experienced by children with Down syndrome. Here is the contact information for the local support group for families. People with Down syndrome experience some extra challenges, but they generally lead joyful and meaningful lives. They go to college, get jobs, and some even marry. Your son will do everything that other children do, just in his own time. I understand that this is a lot of information for you to take in right now. I am not going to rush you into deciding anything. Please look over the information I’ve given you, and feel free to call me or connect with the local support group if you have any further questions. I will see you again next week.”

Feeling stunned by the unexpected diagnosis, but also feeling a faint glimmer of hope that things could still be ok, the couple return home, books and papers and phone numbers in hand. About four months later, their son arrives. “Congratulations!” the doctor says. “He’s perfect.”

This second version is also experienced by some families in Canada. Thankfully, it was our own experience when our son with Down syndrome was born four and a half years ago.

MPP Sara  Singh has introduced Bill 225 (Harvey and Gurvir’s Law) in the Ontario legislature because she agrees that this second version should be the standard for all parents receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

If this law passes, parents will be provided with accurate and up-to-date information about Down syndrome, made aware of supports available to them, and given 48 hours before having any further appointments or procedures suggested.  Knowing the incredible importance of the tone of that initial conversation, I urge you to contact your MPP and ask them to support this law. 

You might also like to know that, if all goes to plan, the little boy in the first story will be joining our family in a few months as a dearly loved son.

Thank you so much to Julia for sharing her family’s story with us and giving us permission to share it here. 

Jane Natasha was born two weeks early, on August 14, 2020. It was a very easy labour, and she was small, just over 6 lbs. It wasn’t until the next evening, after we had announced her arrival to all our friends and family, that a doctor came in and checked her over and told us she was going to call the pediatrician in because Jane had low tone. I didn’t know too much about what low tone (hypotonia) was, so I looked it up and saw the words “Down syndrome.”

Our story may be a little different than many, as we did not have a prenatal diagnosis, but found out a day after Jane’s birth. I had thought to myself soon after she was born that she looked a little like she had Down syndrome, but I thought that was unlikely, and shrugged it off. So after the doctor told us that she had low tone, I looked it up on my phone and found all sorts of information that scared me. My husband and I talked about it together. We checked all the markers to see if she had them … did she have a gap between her toes? Sort of, but so did I. Did she have a palmar crease? No. But her eyes … they definitely had that shape to them.

I prayed and begged to God, “Anything but Down syndrome, please let it not be Down syndrome.” Now I feel incredulous and even ashamed that I felt that way. But we worried and hoped the pediatrician would come and thankfully, she did come that night. She took about a five-second look at Jane and then said, “She has low tone. This is really common in babies with Down syndrome.” As soon as she said those words, I burst into tears and couldn’t calm down. My husband asked the doctors if we could have some time alone and we both cried. We prayed, called our parents, messaged our families, messaged our friends, asking for prayers.

My pregnancy was normal, although the checkups were different because of COVID-19. Everything looked fine, and at the 20-week ultrasound there were no concerns except that the baby’s head was measuring small. I had another ultrasound but “passed” that one, so that was the only indicator we had that there could be anything different about our baby. We promptly forgot about it. I did not do the genetic screening, and sometimes I wish I had known prenatally about our daughter’s diagnosis so that I would have had more time to prepare. But other times I am happy that we didn’t have to go through the pregnancy knowing about it, and having to meet with genetic counsellors and have those kinds of conversations with doctors. Also, because Jane’s diagnosis was undetected in my pregnancy, it meant that she didn’t have any of the serious health concerns often associated with Down syndrome – no holes in her heart, for example.

We didn’t get the official results for Janie’s Trisomy 21 until the week after her birth. The doctor called to confirm the diagnosis, but we already knew from the first moment the pediatrician mentioned it that our little girl definitely had Down syndrome. The doctor who had first told us about the low tone had also said, “She’s a beautiful baby,” which has always stuck with me.

By the next day we were already feeling better, although there were a lot of ups and downs after that. We met with a social worker in the hospital, which was very helpful. She gave us resources from the Fraser Valley Down Syndrome Society (FVDSS) and information about a postpartum group I could connect with. Jane was doing very well in the hospital, besides a bit of jaundice, and the pediatrician was not concerned about anything. She had some routine blood tests for thyroid, and when she was almost 2 months old, we went to BC Children’s Hospital to get her heart checked out, which thankfully had no problems at all.

A few weeks after Jane was born, we were visited by the founding members of FVDSS. This connection was so helpful. Their children were just transitioning into adulthood, and it was great talking to them about what that was like. I had also been connected to a Christian mom on Instagram that had an almost 3-year-old with Down syndrome, a friend of a friend. She was so helpful and answered a lot of my questions and encouraged me.

Our minister and his wife visited, which was also so encouraging, and we had an immediate connection because their daughter has an unknown genetic disorder and, although very different from Jane, they could relate to what we were feeling. One thing my husband and I first worried about after finding out was how it would affect our other kids. Would Luke’s and Ruth’s lives be worse off now that they had a sister with Down syndrome? We wouldn’t be able to give them the attention they needed, I thought. Our pastor and his wife encouraged us that it would be fine, and not just fine, but our children would even be better for it.

I joined a few online groups that were recommended to me by my Instagram friend and that is where I would say the change in me started happening. I loved our daughter but was still scared of Down syndrome and unsure about the future. These groups gave me a place where I could ask any question, answer others, and see beautiful photos of cute babies. From there I joined a breastfeeding group, which was the most helpful for me because I was struggling with feeding Jane.

After joining, things improved and I became more relaxed, and as the weeks passed, I was able to pass on my own tips to new moms. I joined a Christian group for BC moms, a group chat for BC moms with kids 3 and under, and Darryl and I both became members of a BC parents’ group (which has over 400 members). Those groups introduced us to older kids with Down syndrome and opened up discussions about things that we will need to know in the future, which helped us to become a little more confident.

Overall, we had a positive experience with our healthcare providers. The doctors and nurses in the hospital were caring and kind, as were the maternity doctors at the office for follow-up appointments. The pediatrician who diagnosed Jane has become our personal pediatrician and she has been wonderful. It wasn’t until after talking with other parents that I realised that our experience was not the same as others’, especially those who receive a prenatal diagnosis.

The amount of women who have told me (in BC) that they were pressured to abort after a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is horrendous. There seems to be a genetic counsellor at Women’s Hospital who is very negative about babies with genetic conditions. One woman was told her baby wouldn’t be able to move and that it would be like having a “dead baby.” Other people were pressured by family and friends, telling them they couldn’t listen to parents who have children with Down syndrome because those parents would be biased. One nurse had a co-worker who told her that she aborted her baby with Down syndrome because she didn’t want a baby “like that.”

It makes me angry and so, so sad to hear these stories, and also so thankful that it wasn’t something I had to experience. All of the people I’ve met who have children with Down syndrome are so positive and upbuilding. They want to shout their children’s worth. I feel that in my community and church circles I don’t have to do as much shouting – we all know that Jane is a child of God and is special no matter what.

What I most want to say is this: I know now that all the feelings we felt were part of a grieving process. We were grieving the child we thought we would have. But, as I read somewhere a few days after Jane was born, in our case the “problem” was actually the solution. We didn’t have the baby we expected, but we did have a baby, and had to take care of her and love her. A lot of parents say that, looking back, they wish they wouldn’t have cried or been so worried, and I totally agree. I understand those feelings are natural, but really our problem was fear – we were scared that our life wouldn’t be “normal”, that our other kids would suffer, that Jane wouldn’t have a good life, that we wouldn’t be good enough parents. And I think that part of that is because of ignorance about Down syndrome and other disabilities.

We’ve learned so much in the last 7 months that I really do feel I’m a stronger and less fearful person. I look at people with disabilities a lot differently than I used to. I think education for everyone is important, and to have that we need up-to-date information. We need real-life stories, not just facts about what could go wrong. The best thing for us was connecting with other parents in the Down syndrome community.

Jane is one of the healthiest babies with Down syndrome. A lot of women with prenatal diagnoses find out because of health concerns with their baby that show up on ultrasounds. And I’ve seen many tough babies go through a lot. But every mom I’ve talked to says that it’s all worth it and that they love their child so much. I can see it. And it’s important that everyone sees it.

We know that Jane is a child made in the image of God. Her Creator loves her and put her in our family for a reason – and I am thankful to Him every day now for giving her to us. God helped us through the beginning of Jane’s life and we know He’ll continue to be close to us for the rest.

An Ontario MPP has introduced a bill that would change the way a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome is given, including giving parents time to process before suggesting abortion or any further testing. We would love to see legislation like this introduced in every province – as you see from Julia’s story, supportive and encouraging voices can make a huge difference in a family’s journey.

If you have a story to share, we would love to hear from you!

Why the confusion?

One of the reasons for the confusion is that Morgentaler is not really one decision – it’s four decisions. Every time Canada’s Supreme Court hears a case, each sitting judge has the option to write their own decision and the reasoning for it. In Morgentaler, four judges opted to do so.

Three of the decisions, endorsed by a total of five judges, struck down the existing abortion law, while one decision, endorsed by two of the judges, would have upheld the law. This means that while the result is clear – the previous abortion law was struck down as unconstitutional – the reason why is not at all clear, because five different judges arrived at the conclusion in three different ways.

This means that when we draw conclusions from the Morgentaler case regarding abortion in Canada, it must be done with qualifications and by drawing from the various reasons.

While it is difficult to get a clear sense of what Canada’s law is from this case, there are three main takeaways that everyone in the pro-life movement should know from Morgentaler.

#1: The Court did not decide the abortion question.

The Supreme Court did not demand abortion to be legal. They merely found that the former system involving hospital-run committees was arbitrary and unfair.

Chief Justice Dickson wrote in his decision: “[T]he task of this Court in this is not to solve nor seek to solve what might be called the abortion issue, but simply to measure the content of s. 251 [the law on abortion at the time] against the Charter.”

The Supreme Court justices did not decide whether abortion is or is not moral. They did not consider the humanity of the pre-born child nor (with the exception of Justice Wilson’s decision) whether women should or should not have a right to abortion. Instead, they started from the premise that abortion was legal at that time and they examined that law specifically.

In 1969, an amendment to the Criminal Code was passed by Parliament that created an exception to the general illegality of abortion. In practical terms, abortion was illegal unless the pregnant woman received a certificate from a Therapeutic Abortion Committee appointed by a hospital that continuing the pregnancy “would or would be likely to endanger her life or health.” It was this system that the Supreme Court was looking at in the Morgentaler decision. And, to put it succinctly, they found this system of approving abortions to be arbitrary and unfair because hospitals could refuse to appoint a committee, or a committee could take a long time to make the decision, meaning the abortion happened later in pregnancy and had more health implications. Therefore, the majority of judges found a breach of the Charter’s section 7 guarantee of life, liberty and the security of the person.

#2: The Court did not find a right to abortion for women.

Justice Beetz articulated this clearly, saying that, given the abortion law’s placement in the Criminal Code, it “cannot be said to create a ‘right’ [to abortion], much less a constitutional right, but it does represent an exception decreed by Parliament.” Chief Justice Dickson didn’t even consider the question, but merely focused on the specific regime chosen by Parliament.

Some of the confusion around this point is possibly due to Roe v Wade in the US which did find a right to abortion for women. Canada’s law does not have an equivalent decision. To quote current Supreme Court Justice Sheilah Martin (appointed in 2018 by Prime Minister Trudeau), “the Supreme Court did not clearly articulate a woman’s right to obtain an abortion… and left the door open for new criminal abortion legislation when it found that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus.”

The one nuance to this point comes out of Justice Bertha Wilson’s decision. Writing alone (meaning her reasons were not endorsed by the other judges), she found that women “do have a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives” which included in some circumstances the choice to have an abortion. But it should be noted that, in her own estimation, this was not without limits. Which leads us to our third takeaway.

#3: The Court expected Parliament to pass a new abortion law.

Justice Bertha Wilson, after finding women ought to have a “degree of personal autonomy,” limited this by saying a woman’s “reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature.”

In other words, Justice Wilson expected and endorsed a law restricting abortion at least in the later stages of pregnancy. She doesn’t dictate what that law should be, because that is not the role of the Court. It is Parliament’s role as the institution responsible for passing laws in Canada. The Court’s role is limited to examining laws in light of the Charter, as they did in Morgentaler.

Conclusion

The Morgentaler decision did strike down the previous abortion law and, due to the inaction of Parliament, Canada has had no abortion law since. But, in the Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Court was not intending to settle a question about abortion’s legal status, did not discuss what rights the pre-born child should have, did not find a right to abortion, and properly looked to Parliament to consider these vital questions and then pass appropriate legislation.

This is why we focus on Parliament, urging them to answer the call of Morgentaler, including the call from Justice Bertha Wilson to legislate with reference to their “interest in the protection of the foetus.” All these years later, Parliament needs to do what it should have done then: pass a law that begins to recognize the human rights of the pre-born child.

In the first section of that paper, we go over what it means that Canada has no abortion laws – that abortions can be performed at any gestational age, and for any reason, without legal repercussion.

But the meat of the position paper is in the appendices. Appendix 1 shows our thorough attempt to find a law in any federal or provincial regulations. Then Appendix 2 includes quotes from a wide variety of journal articles or books that all say the same thing: Canada has no abortion law.

For example, Erin Nelson, a law professor, wrote in Canadian Health Law and Policy – the textbook recommended by my health law professor at Law School – “Canada is the sole Western nation without any criminal (or direct governmental) control over the provision of abortion services. Under current Canadian law, a woman may have an abortion at any time, for any reason.”

Peter Hogg, Canada’s leading constitutional law expert, lays out some history: “In Morgentaler, the restrictions on abortion in the Criminal Code were struck down as unduly depriving pregnant women of liberty or security of the person, contrary to section 7 of the Charter. In obiter, the Court added that a less restrictive abortion law could possibly be upheld. In 1990, a bill which would have implemented a less restrictive abortion law was introduced into Parliament. However that law was defeated on a tied vote in the Senate, and the divisive issue of abortion has never been revisited, either in terms of a new law, or even in terms of the formal repeal of the law that was declared unconstitutional in 1988. While neither the Charter nor the Court precluded a legislative response to the Morgentaler decision, the abortion issue is so politically explosive that it eludes democratic consensus.”

These are two legal experts in Canada. They are not pro-life or pro-abortion activists. They simply recognize that Canada has no abortion law.

There are also medical professionals who say the same thing, including Dr. Powell with the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto who writes for increased access to abortion. She wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Despite the fact that no law in Canada currently limits the provision of abortion services in publicly funded hospitals, abortion remains a discretionary procedure subject to local hospital policy and the availability of physicians.” She rightly points out that some hospitals refuse to do late-term abortions, but there is no law compelling them to do so.

In fact, this is a fact that was even touted by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who had presentations titled “Canada: Proof that no country needs abortion laws.”

All of these sources and more are cited in our position paper. Our message that “Canada has no abortion laws” is accurate.

I think the reason people struggle to accept this is because of how extreme a position it is – Canada is the only democratic country in the world with no abortion law. Frankly, it’s unbelievable. But it is the sad truth.

The Turnaway Study explains the findings of a unique study which follows 1,000 women who sought abortions. Gloria Steinem’s glowing review graces the cover: “If you read only one book about democracy, The Turnaway Study should be it.” Arguably she’s overhyping this book by Dr. Diana Greene Foster, but it was true that I got my hands on it as soon as I could.

For the study that forms the foundation of the book, recruiters went to abortion clinics in the United States that had a second trimester gestational limit and found women who were turned away – that is, denied abortion because they were too far along in their pregnancy – and women who received an abortion just under the gestational limit. Over the next five years, they periodically followed up with these women, asking about their physical and mental health, their aspirations and financial situation, and the well-being of their children.

The goal was to compare the outcomes of women based on whether they received or were denied an abortion. Does abortion hurt women? Is abortion just another medical procedure? Now we have 1,000 women’s perspective on this issue.

The findings of the study are fascinating and don’t lend themselves to quick conclusions. I want to take some time to unpack what the book says, so this is Part 1 in a series of six blog posts about The Turnaway Study. My hope is that by the end you’ll have a clearer picture of the lives of women who seek abortions and how the pro-life message impacts them.

Let’s start with the assumptions made

Dr. Foster begins and ends with the assumption that choice is good for women. Despite this assumption, however, she does ostensibly write for both a pro-life and a pro-choice audience. She works hard to, in her words, “put myself in the shoes of someone who was concerned about the harms of abortion.” I’m willing to take Dr. Foster at her word that she was trying to be unbiased, but the problem is she can’t be neutral, especially when it comes to the heart of the pro-life position: the humanity of pre-born children.

In the introduction, Dr. Foster does acknowledge that this study “will never resolve the moral question of when a fetus becomes a person,” but she gives shockingly little time to even considering the impact of this question on women. The closest she comes to actually dealing with the question of the humanity of the pre-born comes from a story of one of the women in the study who muses, “in the ethics class, we were talking about when is something considered alive. I’ve always thought it was when it has a personality of some sort.” But this question is noticeably lacking from the rest of the book, leaving the reader missing a crucial part of the equation.

When Dr. Foster discusses the children born to women who were turned away for abortion, she says, apparently without irony, that “women’s lives…are not the only lives affected by the ability to access abortion care.” We agree. Pre-born children’s lives are intimately and fatally affected by abortion. But she neglects this entirely, spending the chapter only considering the outcomes of children that made it to birth.

She concludes that, “enabling women to have abortions when they want them increases the chance that they will become pregnant later when they are ready and prepared to parent.”  She assumes that future children are interchangeable with the present child, ignoring the reality that each life is unique and intrinsically valuable. She also states that many women “choose abortion with the needs of children in mind,” but we must point out that clearly it is not the needs of her pre-born child that are being considered.

How this plays out in women’s lives

These individual, unique lives lost to abortion are still present in the women’s stories that Dr. Foster tells throughout the book. One example is that of Ariela (all names are pseudonyms), who at 19 chose to abort twins. Ariela’s reasons included wanting to finish school and establish a career, and the book includes her jarring summary that “I gave up two lives for myself.” We are not comforted when she elaborates: “Like, I gave them up so I could have a better job, which I do, and so I could go to school, which I’m halfway there, and to have a better life, which I think I’m doing okay.” Her plans to go to law school and seemingly have a “successful” life ring hollow to those who mourn the lives that were lost.

This oversight by Dr. Foster is revealing of the heart of the abortion debate. As Greg Koukl succinctly put it, “If the pre-born is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the pre-born is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.” If Ariela’s twins are not human beings, then we have no reason to question her decision to prioritize her career. But since we know that life begins at fertilization when a unique, distinct human being comes into existence, no accomplishment will come close to compensating for the tragedy of two lives cut short.

What we are able to resonate with are stories like Jenny’s, who was denied an abortion, had her child, and “started crying at the thought of her then-six-year old no longer being in her life. ‘She is just everything to me.’”

Dr. Foster undoubtedly is aware of the argument for the humanity of pre-born children, but always portrays it as an opinion. She deliberately suggests at times that a woman or those around her could “consider” the pre-born child a baby. But she never confronts the question: what if it isn’t just an opinion, but a woman is actually making a choice to end another human being’s life?

If you are going to ask the question of how abortion impacts women, that must include considering how the loss of her child impacts her. But Dr. Foster is not neutral on this point, deliberately sidelining the central tenet of the pro-life position.

The pro-life movement has thought about the women

While she largely ignores the very truth that motivates the pro-life movement, I generally am willing to take Dr. Foster at face value when it comes to her attempt to be unbiased. However, I must take issue with the way she characterizes the pro-life movement as not even thinking about the women.

She pronounces this judgment by telling a story of a pro-life American politician responding to a journalist’s question of, “’What do you think makes a woman want to have an abortion?” Obviously caught off guard, the politician stammers a bit before offering, “It’s a question I’ve never even thought about.” From that single instance, Dr. Foster concludes that, “In the decades-long battle over abortion rights, this one moment completely captures the disconnect between the politics of restricting abortion and the lived experiences of women who want one.”

In one fell swoop she ignores the many in the pro-life movement, including those of us in the political realm, who have spent countless hours seeking to understand women’s lived experience. People like Frederica Mathewes-Green who detailed the lived experiences of women in her book Real Choices. Or the brave post-abortive women who use their stories to highlight the reality of abortion. Or the countless people across both the United States and Canada that keep pregnancy resource centres going. These centres are devoted to understanding why women are seeking an abortion while promoting options that are best for her and her child.

We have thought of the women. And we have thought of the pre-born child. The reality is that the choice for abortion is not about one person, but two. Some in the pro-abortion movement, like Dr. Foster, will try to claim it is only about the women. Others might view it as woman versus child. But the pro-life movement has the radical belief that we can be for both woman and child.

We’ll delve into that more in Part 2, when we consider what is actually best for women.

Over the past few years, “safe access zone” laws, also called bubble zone laws, have been passed in Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Quebec, and currently there is private member’s bill regarding this at the Manitoban legislature. Every time a province considers this issue, we’ve let you know and asked you to write to your representative pointing out the concerns with this type of law.

We are concerned about the ways these laws specifically ban pro-life speech. There are three restrictions that are particularly concerning in bubble zones, and I want to clarify those in more detail. I am using the Ontario legislation throughout; while other provinces’ laws might vary slightly in wording, they are similar in substance.

#1 Disapproval of abortion

Section 3(1)(c) While in bubble zone no person shall “perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services.”

It is illegal to disapprove abortion near an abortion clinic. It’s not about how you disapprove, but the act of disapproving itself is illegal. If it were about disapproving loudly, that could be regulated through something like a noise bylaw. If it were about preventing large protests, that could be regulated through restrictions on gathering size, as we are seeing in response to Covid-19. But this law is not concerned with the manner of communication at all. It’s all about the message being communicated. You may approve of abortion, but disapproval is illegal.

This means, for example, that two women could stand side by side outside an abortion clinic with signs – one saying “I regret my abortion” and the other saying “I don’t regret my abortion.” Despite each being a statement of personal experience on the same topic, only the latter is legal. This prohibition isn’t about protecting women’s safety, or even peace of mind, but about preventing women from hearing anything other than full of approval of abortion.

#2 Informing about abortion

Section 3(1)(b) While in a bubble zone no person shall “inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services.”

It is illegal to provide information.

This is the most bizarre element of bubble zones laws. Why do we need to prohibit information? And not just misinformation; this law actually prohibits one person from informing another person about abortion. Why does a law purporting to guarantee women safe access to abortion require the suppression of information?

Women seeking abortions are making complicated decisions based on the information they have. This information could come from what they learned school, what they’ve heard from family members, what their friend said, what the abortionist tells them, what they read in the news, or what they saw online. The fact is we don’t make decisions in a vacuum but based on the whole world around us, and an informed choice requires information.

Every woman deserves to know the truth about abortion. Not just the truth about the actual procedure, but the truth about the humanity and corresponding human rights of her pre-born child. She is making a choice – she deserves to know what the choice entails. Silencing a dissenting voice doesn’t increase a woman’s autonomy or safety, it only decreases the information and potential support available to her.

#3 Advising someone against abortion

While in a bubble zone no person shall “advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services.” Section 3(1)(a).

Notice again the one-way application: it’s illegal to advise or persuade someone not to have an abortion, but there is no prohibition on persuading someone to have an abortion. This is despite the number of women who report feeling pressured into having abortions.

Persuading a woman to have an abortion is a serious issue. Some women are coerced. This is especially a concern for women being trafficked, who are sometimes forced to have an abortion by their pimp. It is also an issue of safety for minors who have been sexually assaulted, where abortion is used to cover up a crime. Some women face pressure from loved ones. Whether it’s a partner threatening to leave or a parent threatening to kick her out of the home, there are many ways a woman can be wrongly persuaded into having an abortion, yet there is no law to criminalize this.

Even without anyone actively pressuring her, a woman can feel like she has nowhere to go. Whether it’s financial, social, or career-wise, some women feel like abortion is their only option. We are allowed to advise her to have an abortion, but we can’t provide other options. We aren’t allowed to talk to her to see if we can address her underlying concerns. We aren’t allowed to let her know that there is support for her if she becomes a parent. A woman in that situation may well be making the hardest decision of her life – why are we not allowed to come alongside her?

“Safe access” laws are not about promoting women’s interests. They are about promoting abortion by preventing a woman from encountering the pro-life message at a time when she may need it the most. Anyone concerned about the lives of pre-born children and the well-being of women, not to mention anyone who values freedom of expression, must oppose bubble zone laws.

Dr. Stella is one of four remaining doctors in the US who openly perform third trimester abortions. In the documentary After Tiller she is very clear that abortion results in the death of a pre-born child. Funeral arrangements are shown, how to tell your family is discussed, and Dr. Stella has no issue using the term “baby.”

Yet she defends what she does in cases of fetal abnormality, explaining “I recognize what I do. And at times I struggle and at times I don’t. But I always come back to the woman and what she’s going through. And often what life will this baby have? What will it mean to be alive with horrific fetal abnormalities?”

Dr. Stella’s concern for what the woman is going through and what kind of life the child will have are both weighty considerations.

What is the woman going through?

I can only imagine the emotional turmoil caused by those dreaded words: “I am so sorry. There is something wrong with the baby.” Sarah Williams describes in Perfectly Human her experience when her third daughter, Cerian, was diagnosed with thanatophoric dysplasia – a lethal skeletal deformity. Cerian’s chest was too small to sustain the proper development of the lungs, meaning she likely would be unable to breathe after birth.

Within an hour of delivering this devastating news at an ultrasound appointment, the consultant was suggesting dates for termination seemingly as an obvious next step. In the United Kingdom, where Sarah lived, there is a gestational limit on abortion of 24 weeks, but she learned there was no such limit for Cerian because she had a fetal abnormality.

Fetal abnormalities can be serious, like in Cerian’s case, but the exception in the UK law has also been used for treatable conditions like cleft palate. The exception also includes those with Down syndrome.  Abortion because of Down syndrome gained international notoriety after Iceland claimed in 2017 that they had eradicated Down syndrome – not by eliminating the condition, but by eliminating the people with the condition. One woman in Canada was even told that abortion was the only cure for Down syndrome.

Fetal abnormalities generally, and Down syndrome specifically, have gone from an exception in abortion laws to an expectation of abortion.

In the state of shock and grief resulting from an unexpected diagnosis, parents talk of the struggle to see their child as a person rather than a condition. The pressure from trusted medical professionals only adds to their burden. When Dr. Stella talks about being concerned about the women, is she concerned about what information was given along with the diagnosis or whether she was pressured to terminate? Does Dr. Stella ever tell a woman that she could continue her pregnancy and find the strength and support to raise a child with a disability?

What life will this baby have?

It is not just the parents that Dr. Stella is concerned about, but also “what will it mean to be alive with horrific fetal abnormalities?” Disabilities or genetic conditions unquestionably come with challenges. While many with Down syndrome live healthy, well-rounded lives, others face significant health and developmental challenges. Do challenges, pain, or suffering justify Dr. Stella’s position?

The reality is Dr. Stella does not know what life will be like for any given child. Sarah’s husband, Paul, was told that the statistical chances that his daughter would live with thanatophoric dysplasia was 1%. After questioning further, Paul discovered that statistic was based on a study of only 35 cases. Furthermore, of those 35 cases, 22 of them were terminated. We do not know what the lives of those 22 aborted children would be like.

This lack of information is an issue with many fetal abnormalities used to justify late term abortions. Brandon Bosma’s parents were told that his condition of Trisomy 18 meant he was “incompatible with life” and many with the condition are given a DNR – “do not resuscitate” – order and denied medical care. And yet, defying these labels, Brandon lives a full life as an international speaker and advocate for those living while being “incompatible with life.”

What is the quality and importance of these lives?

All this is not to minimize the very real hardships that Cerian faced and that Brandon still faces today. The question is, how do we value those who face these challenges?

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada draws this conclusion: “Being disabled, in and of itself, is not necessarily related to the quality and importance of life. Once born, the disabled have rights like everyone else, and very often lead full, productive lives. On the other hand,…especially the severely disabled, depend upon the care of others. Such care consumes substantial time and resources on the part of the caregiver.”

This pro-abortion organization holds up an ideal of an independent, productive, healthy person. In their view, someone with a disability might be able to mimic that ideal, giving their life quality and importance. But for the weak, the dependent, the suffering – their lives do not have the same quality or importance. By attempting to devalue pre-born children with disabilities, the pro-abortion narrative devalues all born people with disabilities. They grant that you are unable to end the life of a born child with a disability, but support doing so before she is born to avoid the sacrifice of “time and resources on the part of the caregiver.” What a tragic, ableist, and consumerist approach to humanity.

A life tragically cut short

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s last reason to allow abortion for fetal abnormalities is to avoid “much heartache and trauma, especially where a child’s life may be cut tragically short because of the illness or disability.” They point to short lives like Cerian’s who, despite evading an appointment with an abortionist, passed away shortly before her birth. They ignore that abortion would have only tragically cut her life shorter.

Not only does abortion cut that life shorter, it ends that life in a brutal fashion. Watching After Tiller you will notice that Dr. Stella explains why she does third trimester abortions, but never shows what she does. A third trimester abortion is a painful, brutal process for both the woman and the child. Dr. Stella’s concern for “what life this baby will have” needs to be juxtaposed by what death this baby will have.

Principle versus the person

Sarah was pro-life before she got the news of Cerian’s condition, but she describes the turmoil she went through deciding whether to terminate or not. The principles she held seemed insufficient when she faced the real situation. As the pregnancy progressed, however, Sarah gained strength in her faith and the call she felt to love Cerian no matter how long she had to do so. And it was that call and that perspective that carried her through.

A doctor asked Sarah, “Did you decide not to have a termination on strong religious grounds?” Sarah instinctively responded, “Cerian is not a strong religious principle or a rule that compels me to make hard and fast ethical decisions. She is a beautiful person who is teaching me to love the vulnerable, treasure the unlovely, and face fear with dignity and hope.”

Sarah saw the person Cerian was. Although Cerian did not live past her birth, never spoke to her parents, never went to school, and never had a job, Cerian was loved and valued. Sarah and her family recognized Cerian for the unique human being that she was and strove to love her every day they had with her.

What a difference it would make if we adopted Sarah’s approach as a culture. Rather than immediately offering abortion, what if doctors immediately offered to do everything to help both woman and baby. Rather than focusing on a condition, what if we affirmed the humanity and dignity of every pre-born child. What if we strove to love children like Cerian no matter how few their days, rather than tragically cutting that life short by abortion.

In all but one of the opinion polls publicly available since 2010, a majority of Canadians support at least some law regulating abortion.

Are Canadians pro-choice?

If you look at the polls that ask whether abortion is permissible (i.e. whether you always support a woman’s choice) the numbers are much closer, with an average of 48% supporting a choice at any point, 46% only supporting sometimes, and 5% unsure.

How can we interpret these results? With opinion polls it is always important to look at the methodology, what questions are being asked and who is being asked. For example, if you ask the average Canadian their opinions on abortion you must remember that (according to one poll) 77% of Canadians are unaware that Canada has no abortion law. Saying you support a women’s right to choose may mean something very different if you are assuming a woman can’t legally have a third trimester abortion.

The 2020 Dart poll is an excellent example of this. In that poll 71% believe a woman should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason, but at the same time 70% of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the last trimester and 84% supported a law against sex selective abortion.

This illustrates the difference of being asked “Do you support women?” versus “Do you support the termination of a 24-week old fetus who is viable and can feel pain?” or “Do you support abortion targeting a pre-born child because of her sex?” It may feel good to affirm the first question, but uncomfortable when faced with what this means to the pre-born in the second questions.

Prominent pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur acknowledges this saying, “Virtually everyone supports “freedom” and “privacy” so a large majority of people will agree that women should have both. But if specific questions are asked about exactly when fetal life should be protected, women’s so-called “complete freedom” to have abortions appears to take a sudden nosedive.” Abortion becomes far less palatable when you are faced with the reality of what it does to a pre-born human.

If you really want to know your opinion on abortion, consider the following:

1. Do you know that Canada is the only democratic country with no law on abortion?
2. Since Canada has no abortion law, do you think it is okay that abortions occur in the last trimester with no legal restrictions?
3. Given questions 1 & 2, do you really think any choice a woman makes regarding her pre-born child should be legal?

If you’re not comfortable answering these questions in the affirmative, look at our International Standards Law as a solution. This proposed law would bring Canada in line with all other democratic countries in protecting pre-born children after 13-weeks gestation. It would also allow a waiting period for women seeking an abortion, along with independent counselling to ensure proper informed consent and to screen for coercion or abuse. It’s time we acknowledge that abortion is not only about women, but also about pre-born human beings. It’s time for a law that protects them, while supporting the women who carry them.

Links to opinion polls referenced in tables:

2010 Ipsos Reid

2011 AbacusData

2011 Environics

2012 Forum Research

2012 Postmedia

2012 Angus Reid

2013 Environics

2013 Angus Reid

2017 Ipsos Reid

2018 Angus Reid

2019 Public Square Research

2020 DART