Sex-selective Abortion – 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.

Effecting Political Change: How to meet with your MP

WNAL Staff — Wed, 12 May 2021 19:14:13 +0000

What’s the most effective form of communication with your elected representative? How do you even speak to him or her while most of the country is in lockdown?

The pandemic has impacted our communication for well over a year but this hasn’t prevented Canadians from engaging on Bill C-233, a bill to prohibit sex-selective abortion. This bill, introduced at around the same time as our lives were interrupted by COVID-19, is sponsored by MP Cathay Wagantall and it is finally making its way through the House of Commons.

Canadians have signed tens of thousands of petitions, sent in hundreds of emails, and handwritten over 30,000 pink envelopes to their MPs. As evidenced by the number of MPs sharing posts and videos of all this communication, it clearly makes a difference!

Yet, with only weeks remaining before Bill C-233 is voted on, the most effective thing you can do is to arrange for a face-to-face meeting with your Member of Parliament to outline why you want them to support Ms. Wagantall’s bill. With lockdown restrictions in place, we have had great success in training people how to connect with their MP via a Zoom video call.

The power of a personal plea far outweighs any other form of communication and through our presentations we have equipped many of you to do just this. Not sure this is for you? Don’t have Zoom or even know how to go about booking a meeting? Slide through the following images which give a quick step by step guide on how to accomplish this.

Now that you’ve booked your meeting you might be wondering what’s next. Please take a few moments to scroll through the following slides that will help equip you to join dozens of others in taking your communication to the next level.

The training webinars that we have hosted are available to those who would like to view more material. As well, we have an entire PowerPoint presentation that you can use during the meeting with your MP. Please contact us at info@test.weneedalaw.ca and we can send them to you, or if you have any questions.

We look forward to assisting you in every way we can!

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.

Pro-life bus ads supported by community activism

WNAL Staff — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:29:41 +0000

This week, London, Ontario is being blitzed with the message that girls need defending – including pre-born girls. New bus ads have gone up on city buses stating, “We’re for women’s rights.” The image shows three born women of various ages with the word “Hers” underneath them, alongside an ultrasound image with the words “And hers.” The ad directs people to DefendGirls.com, where they can learn more about the practice of sex selective abortion and what it means for women’s equality.

Sex selective abortion refers to the practice of having an abortion because of the sex of the pre-born child. While it can target both boys and girls as parents try to build their “designer family,” statistics are clear that girls are targeted for abortion more frequently than boys. This is a worldwide problem, and there is evidence that this practice also occurs in Canada. In a country that values gender equality, there should be no room for this kind of sexism.

In conjunction with this bus ad campaign, local pro-life supporters are putting up lawn signs with a companion image, spreading the message right into their communities.

Polls consistently show that more than 80% of Canadians agree that sex selective abortion is wrong. This is more consensus than Canadians have on almost any other issue! Yet our laws do not reflect this reality, in part because our leaders are hesitant to talk about abortion, and in part because many Canadians have no idea that sex selection is happening.

MP Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton-Melville) has introduced a private member’s bill that would bring the law in line with what Canadians believe – that it is wrong to kill a girl simply because she is a girl. Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act, is set to be debated in mid-April in the House of the Commons, so the timing is ideal for drawing attention to the issue of sex selective abortion in Canada.

If you don’t live in London, you can still be involved in raising awareness about sex selective abortion and raising support for the Sex Selective Abortion Act! Here are a few things you can do today:

Sign the petition!
MP Cathay Wagantall has an official parliamentary petition in support of her call to end sex selective abortion. Even if you have already signed a paper petition on this issue, you can still sign and share the e-petition – it only takes a minute.

Write a letter to the editor!
In 250 words or less, explain the issue of sex selective abortion and express your support for the bus ads, or for the Sex Selective Abortion Act. If you need help with this, please feel free to contact us for a draft letter.

Attend our Lobbying 101 Webinar!
Talking to your MP doesn’t have to be intimidating. Register for our webinar on March 30, 2021 to get tips on meeting with your MP, from how to book a meeting to watching a mock MP visit.

Email your MP!
Let your MP know you will be following the debate on Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act, and ask them to support it. Let them know you value gender equality from the earliest stages of life. Our SimpleMail is a great tool, as it gives you a place to start and will walk you through what to write and where to send it.

Fundraise for bus ads!
We still have the freedom to share the pro-life message, and we should take every opportunity to do so. If you’re interested in bringing a pro-life message to your city’s buses let us know – we are happy to help you with graphics and communication.

Add a frame to your profile picture!
We’ve created a “Defend Girls” Facebook frame that you can add to your Facebook profile picture until the end of April.

Together, we can spread the message of these ads much further!

Lobbying 101: Register today!

WNAL Staff — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 01:03:55 +0000

Want to make your voice heard on the issue of sex selective abortion? Bill C-233 is scheduled to be debated in April and the We Need a Law team wants to equip you to talk to your MP about it! From requesting a meeting, to the do’s and don’ts of lobbying at that meeting, to how to answer commonly asked questions, we’ll walk you through an effective way to encourage your MP to vote in favour of the Sex Selective Abortion Act.

Click to Register: 7:30 PM EST | 4:30 PM PST

Click to Register: 7:00 PM PST | 8:00 PM MST

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″]

Missing a hand: Ableism and selective abortion

WNAL Staff — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 03:30:16 +0000

An Australian woman was almost 19 weeks pregnant when she learned at a routine scan that her pre-born child was missing a hand. Medical professionals gave the couple information about prosthetic options and offered pre- and post-natal support to raise their child. However, the parents chose to end the life of this young girl. In fact, her being a girl was a factor in the decision to abort, as the parents explained that they “felt the cosmetic impact [of missing a hand] would be far greater for a girl.” Put another way, the parents thought the appearance of missing a hand would be harder for a girl than for a boy.

Tragedy for more than one

Every abortion is a tragedy. No justification is sufficient to do away with the tragedy and the reasons given are irrelevant to the pre-born child. And yet, being aborted for both a disability and because of sex represents an even greater tragedy. Not for the pre-born child, maybe, but certainly for the culture surrounding that child.

We often view abortion as being about individuals –the individual woman and her circumstances and the individual pre-born child. But there is a whole culture surrounding and impacting these individuals. Catherine Mills, a Professor in the Monash Bioethics Centre, tries to capture this in her article saying, “Reproductive autonomy is not exercised in a social vacuum; it is exercised only within the parameters set not only by law but also by social norms.” I would add that those social norms and law are likewise influenced by individual’s choices.

Normalcy and disability

Professor Mills is pro-abortion, but she wrestles with the abortion chosen in this story not out of concern for that specific pre-born child, but the broader impact of that decision. To give a concise summary of her argument, she suggests that living with one a hand can be normal. Not standard. Not normal in the sense of it being common to be missing a hand. But in a redefining of the concept of normalcy. Is a normal life defined by a certain ability? Or is a normal life defined by the way in which it is lived? Basing the concept of normalcy on standard ability will always favor the able-bodied and bar those missing a hand. But by refocusing the manner in which we value life by on the way life is lived or the relationships one has, you can see that every life has the capacity to be valuable gift both to the individual living it as well as to those around her. Based on this refocusing, Professor Mill concludes that the missing hand “does not provide justification for termination.”

Disability and sex

She doesn’t stop at just the missing hand, but goes on to discuss the inherent sexism as not a wholly separate issue from the disability. Rather, she says, “the ethics of termination for disability and sex selection remain distinct but nevertheless always recalls the other.” She sees the two issues as intertwining, which is especially apparent in these parents’ concern for the “cosmetic impact” of the missing hand because she was a girl and the way that “reveals the extent to which this decision – and perhaps others like it – was predicated on social stereotypes and norms, both about sex and gender and about disability.”

The stereotype in this case is being female necessarily includes a cosmetic component, and missing a hand detracts from that cosmetic component. To put it bluntly – girls should be pretty, and missing a hand is not pretty.

What the pro-life movement can learn

Professor Mill decries sexism and ableism as factors in the decision to abort, but misses the fact that these are natural symptoms of denying the humanity of the pre-born child. Selective terminations, whether for ability or sex or any other reason, ignore the human right to life.

While the pro-life movement understands the tragedy of every abortion, we are able to concern ourselves also more specifically with the ethical issues surrounding selective terminations. I like to think about it in terms of a puzzle. If you’re doing a jigsaw puzzle, there are two approaches that you can take. You can either look at the picture you are trying to construct and see how the individual pieces fit into it, or you can look at the individual pieces and try to see how the shapes and colours fit together, ignoring the bigger picture until the end. The humanity of the pre-born child, and the associated right to life, is the bigger picture that we want everyone to see. But helping someone see the harms of sex selective abortions, or abortions based on ableism, is helping them put together smaller pieces that will ultimately help build the bigger picture.

Stories like this one offend everyone who doesn’t fit the standard definition of “normal,” and rightly so. They offend everyone who fights against gender stereotypes and pressures to conform. We share stories like this in hopes of helping build the puzzle for those who do not yet see the full picture: that every life has value and deserves protection.

Creative ways to get signatures during Covid-19

WNAL Staff — Thu, 28 May 2020 17:23:55 +0000

In February 2020, MP Cathay Wagantall introduced Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act. This private member’s bill would make it illegal for a medical practitioner to perform an abortion when the known reason is the sex of the pre-born child.

This is an act that recognizes the equal value of men and women, boys and girls, from the earliest stages. And there’s a petition you can sign to support it! Download the pdf to add your signature today.

Every time a petition has 25 signatures from Canadians, it can be presented by an MP along with a brief description of what the petition is about. In this case, every 25 signatures mean Ms. Wagantall has the opportunity to stand up and remind her colleagues that sex selective abortion is wrong, and Canadians agree that something should be done to stop it.

By adding your family’s signatures, you are adding to the number of times MP Wagantall can bring up sex selective abortion in Parliament.

But don’t just sign it yourself – get more people to do that same! There is no minimum age for signing a petition, so anyone who understands and agrees can sign. The official petition is hard copy at this time, so if you’ve signed an e-petition it is not one that can be presented in Parliament.

But how can we get petitions signed when we can’t share pens, host signing parties, or attend regular church services and group gatherings at which to accost people?

It’s time to get creative!

We are hopeful that Cathay Wagantall’s bill will come up for discussion again later this year. We want to do all we can to build support for the Sex Selective Abortion Act with the unexpected extra time we’ve been given. Petitions are a great way to show that Canadians are talking about this, and they want a law against sex selection.

Here are some ideas for how to get signatures during these socially distant times:

Scour your house for pens. Fill a jar or mug with the pens and set up a table for petition signing. You can do this at a park, beach, or on your front driveway. Ask friends and family to walk or drive by and sign – when a pen is used, simply transfer it to a second jar so no one else uses it.
Set up a table in your school parking lot or gym. Many schools are returning to class for a few days before the school year is out, and many are not providing bus service. Ask parents to stick around for a minute when dropping off their kids so they can sign a petition.
Take the petition to them! Drive around with your petition on a clipboard and ask friends to meet you at their front door and sign it with their own pen.
If your church is meeting, either in person or for a drive-in service, bring the petition and a bag of pens to the service and ask for signatures.

All of these ideas can be complemented by being prepared with some basic talking points:

There is no abortion law in Canada, which means it can be (and is) used to abort babies based on their sex.
Girls are targeted more often than boys. This goes against our commitment to equality of the sexes, as we can discriminate against one sex even before it is born.
A Member of Parliament is working to create a law banning the use of abortion for sex selection, and ask them to sign the petition in support of her law.
Point people to DefendGirls.com for more information.

If you send in a petition with 1 signature, 10 signatures, 25 signatures, or 100 signatures, you are contributing to keeping this discussion open in Parliament. Thank you for helping us spread the word to fellow Canadians that we need a law against sex selective abortion, and that such a law is on the table in Parliament!

Stories of sex selection in Canada

WNAL Staff — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 03:56:28 +0000

Sex selection abortion happens in Canada. It impacts both boys and girls as families seek to create exactly the type of family they envisioned, but it disproportionately impacts girls. These stories are based on true stories, showing the very real decisions made based on sex preference, allowed by our complete lack of abortion law. We need a law.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Story #1: More than we bargained for

Catherine showed Andrew the pregnancy test. There was a glow in her cheeks that showed only a fraction of the joy that was coursing through her. After being together for ten years, countless doctors appointments, various medications, and still being disappointed every month, Catherine and Andrew had finally decided to try IVF. The doctor had explained the process in a friendly but serious manner, going over the success rates.

“We will transfer three embryos into your uterus,” he had explained. “That way we improve the likelihood that at least one will implant itself there.” Catherine nodded, determined. She wanted a child.

The joy Andrew felt was only surpassed by his relief. Relief that it had succeeded. Catherine’s joy was all encompassing. Even that first day she began to speak to her child, despite knowing that the child couldn’t hear yet. This child was going to complete their family, going to complete her life. Nothing could lessen her joy.

The unabated joy, however, was sidelined by shock as Catherine lay on the table staring at the ultrasound screen. As she looked at her child, a mixture of emotions that she couldn’t even begin to describe took hold of heart. It was not just her child that she saw, it was her children. Three children to be precise. Every single one of the embryos had successfully implanted in her uterus. She looked over at Andrew, but he just stared at the screen.

When the doctor began to talk to them the shock had still not worn off. Catherine had wanted a child, but triplets? How could she possibly manage that?

“Each of the fetuses is healthy,” the doctor explained. “Of course, a multi-fetal pregnancy always comes with risks, for both you and the fetuses.” He gestured at Catherine. “We should discuss your options.”

“Options?” asked Andrew.

“Yes. We can, of course, reduce the pregnancy.”

“Reduce the pregnancy?” Andrew asked, uncomprehending.

“Yes, terminate one or two of the fetuses. You can also choose not to do so, in which case we will have to discuss how to monitor the pregnancy. With triplets come an increased risk of serious complications, including preterm labour and premature birth, which can have lasting consequences for the children.”

Andrew suddenly understood what was being implied and he looked at Catherine. “Reducing the pregnancy makes sense to me,” he said. “We aren’t ready for three anyway. It might make sense to keep two – who knows if we will ever get pregnant again, but three is just too much. Don’t you agree?”

Catherine didn’t respond right away. Shock still gripped her. She looked down at her stomach – not that there was anything to see there yet. But there would be soon. Triplets. Three babies. Inside her. And then she would have to give birth to them. And then she would have to care for them for the rest of her life. Fear was slowly replacing the shock.

“If we just reduce the pregnancy,” Andrew was saying, repeating the phrase he had only just learned. “We could see if we can have a boy and a girl. A perfect little family of four.”

Twins I can do, she thought. “Yeah, a boy and a girl would be perfect. What a gift that we can get two children instead of the one we were hoping for. That would be perfect.”

Andrew and Catherine went home to sleep on it, and decided to find out the sex of the babies she carried. Two girls and one boy. They talked, they cried, and then they agreed – a boy and a girl would be perfect. When they returned to the doctor, they were sure.

“Let’s reduce the pregnancy.”

And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.

Story #2: Plenty of girls

Janine was putting together the finishing touches on her middle daughter’s costume. Just that morning, Annaliese had announced that she wanted to go trick-or-treating as an octopus. Despite searching every costume and thrift store in their small town, there was no octopus costume to be found. The look of disappointment on Annaliese’s face grew as they went to store after store, finding a princess dress for Sarah and a Batgirl outfit for Ellie. “What about a turtle?” Janine had asked her 6-year-old. Annaliese hadn’t said anything, but tears filled her eyes. Janine was not one to spoil her three girls, but her hearts strings were pulled. She loved her daughters dearly and wanted them to see the world for all the possibilities it had for women.

“Maybe we can be resourceful.” Janine said. “Let’s see if we can figure out how to make an octopus costume.” Annaliese was enthralled and they spent the rest of the day looking up patterns and finding the material they needed. Janine was proud of her daughter. She had worked hard and carefully all day. All that was left for Janine to do after her daughters were in bed was the finishing touches.

As she looked with satisfaction at the 8-legged costume, she heard the front door open as her husband Spencer arrived home from work. He was up for a promotion that kept him at the office longer these days. The costume was laid aside as another more serious topic took over her mind. Janine was unsure whether the wave of nausea she felt was the morning sickness or the dread of the conversation she intended to have.

Spencer was pulling food out of the fridge when she walked into the kitchen. She sat at the island as he turned to her.

“I found out today that it’s a girl,” Janine said. Spencer didn’t react right away, but Janine knew he must be feeling disappointment. He loved his daughters, she knew, but he had wanted a son. He had wanted someone to play catch with, to take fishing, and to carry on his name. Spencer would never have voiced this, but Janine knew. She knew, because she had wanted that to.

“So, a family of four girls,” he finally said.

“Well,” Janine said. “I was thinking about it. This isn’t a great time to have another child anyway. With you up for the promotion and working so much, maybe it would work better to wait. Three children is already a lot – wouldn’t it be better if we are going to have a fourth that we try again for a boy?”

Spencer pondered this for a moment. “It’s not too late?” he asked.

“I can still have it done at the clinic,” she responded. “And we haven’t told the girls yet so there won’t be any questions from them. The only people who know are our parents and we can just say it was miscarriage.”

Spencer nodded. “Ok. And when the timing’s better, we can try again for a boy.”

And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.

The stories themselves do not always overtly show the misogyny in sex selection – the stories are not all filled with women-hating men coercing their wives into abortions every time they’re pregnant with a girl. Yet, in a country that claims to to value equality of the sexes, evidence has been found that a cultural valuing of males in some communities means girls are overwhelmingly targeted for abortion, especially if the family already has girls. Countries like China and India are dealing with this problem on wide-spread scale, but this is also a Canadian problem.

New assisted reproductive technologies have also made multiple pregnancies more likely, and those who practice these types of medicine look for ways to build a designer family and reduce potential risk. Sadly, “risk” in these case is too often a pre-born child.

If we say that equality of the sexes is important to us as Canadians, we need to back that up with laws that recognize their equal value from the earliest stages. Life is meant to be lived, not controlled. When we focus on designing our families to perfection, we will target those who do not fit our mold, be it based on sex, potential disability, or anything else. If we allow this kind of selection in the womb, that kind of thinking will impact our treatment of born human beings as well. We need a law that bans sex selection abortion, and everything it stands for.