This is relevant to the pro-life movement because studies consistently show a correlation between women seeking an abortion and the experience of intimate partner violence. We know that some women choose abortion because of pressure from a spouse or partner. Those women often fear violence or have experienced abuse in the past.
A study done at a Quebec family planning clinic found that women seeking abortion “were at significantly greater risk of having been victims of most types of abuse measured, including lifetime abuse, and of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse in the past year, and they were also more likely to express fear” than women seeking to continue their pregnancy.
The bill opens with the statement that, “Everyone commits an offence who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct towards a person with whom they are connected that they know or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person and that has such an impact on that person.”
Under the interpretation of that statement, it is clarified that coercive or controlling conduct is any conduct that “causes the person alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, including (i) limits on their ability to safeguard their well-being or that of their children” (emphasis added). This provides legal recourse for women facing pressure to abort.
The bill is waiting for its second reading, but it received multi-party support and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report supporting the bill.
Will it actually stop intimate partner violence?
This bill is short on details as to how it would actually benefit those facing coercion and control. Presumably they would have to know about the change in law in order to benefit from it. So where could we give them that information? This bill would be more useful if it included a practical component regarding screening for intimate partner violence in settings where it could be most effective. One of those places is in doctors’ offices and abortion clinics.
One study found that 81% of Canadian women surveyed believed that health-care providers should ask all women whether they are subject to IPV. Citing multiple stories of rape or abuse, abortion counsellors suggest that the experience of unplanned pregnancy and seeking an abortion can be a “catalyst for making positive changes” in the lives of those seeking abortion. This is an opportunity to be heard and get help. We should be using these opportunities to empower women to get out of abusive relationships.
We know that women seeking abortion are a vulnerable group. They are more likely to be experiencing emotional and relationship distress. Health care professionals should screen women seeking an abortion for intimate partner violence, to be able to make them aware of laws that protect them. They can also direct patients to support and local emergency services.
Part of addressing intimate partner violence is stopping it in its tracks. This bill has good intentions, but it needs to go further in order to actually benefit those most in need of help escaping coercion or control.
Researcher Pat Maloney recently shared a Health Canada report on the adverse reactions that women have had to the abortion pill here in Canada. This includes one woman who tragically died from taking the drug. Maloney also goes over other reactions that women have had to the pill, but it should be noted that even when the abortion pill is working “normally”, there is nothing quick or easy about the experience.
In a video explaining how the abortion pill works, the University of Waterloo Faculty of Science and the Shore Centre explain the common side effects of the pill: cramping, nausea, and diarrhea. But they go on to explain that you are only supposed to seek urgent care if you are bleeding clots the size of lemons for more than 2 hours. If that heavy bleeding lasts less than 2 hours, that’s considered normal.
Women are unprepared for the experience
There is a common theme in the stories of post-abortive women revealing that they are completely unprepared for what is coming. Norine, a pro-choice woman, described her experience back in 2007 to Marie-Claire magazine: “Nothing – not the drug literature, not the clinic doctor, not even my own gyno – had prepared me for the searing, gripping, squeezing pain that ripped through my belly…I was disoriented, nauseated, and, between crushing waves of contractions that I imagine were close to what labor feels like, racing from the bed to the bathroom with diarrhea. Then, just as quickly, it was over. The next night, I started bleeding. I bled for 14 days. A follow-up ultrasound confirmed I’d aborted. And that’s when my problems really began.”
The problems that followed included depression, for which her doctor prescribed antidepressants, saying “One day, you’ll feel just like your old self.” Norine said it took nine months.
That’s Norine’s story. And it reveals one of the issues with talking about the abortion pill as a one-size-fits-all “solution” to unwanted pregnancy. There is no way to know how a particular woman will react to the drugs before she takes them. There is no way to predict how her body will react and whether she will face complications.
But what is the worst part?
Rose’s story was published by pro-abortion author Renate Klein in RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths & Morals. Rose experienced nausea, pain, and large clots of blood that caused her to call medical professionals twice in 24 hours. But they told her that this was normal.
Amidst the pain and blood, however, Rose concludes that “the worst part of the RU 486 was the sheer amount of time it took for me to ‘terminate’ my baby: with each and every large clot of blood…was a reminder of the fact I was terminating a baby, for which I felt hugely saddened. More than I realized I would.”
The reality is that the abortion pill is a horrible experience for women. But it’s horrible for women not just because it’s an uncomfortable experience for which they are ill-prepared. It’s horrible because it ends the life of a pre-born child, and they are faced squarely with that fact while the pill takes effect. A “successful” abortion, whether through the pill or a surgical abortion, means the successful ending of a pre-born child’s life – a life that is relationally and physically intertwined with the mother.
For Dr. Foster in The Turnaway Study, abortion is fundamentally about “choice,” as we saw in a previous post in this series. This combines with another frequent theme throughout the stories: the hard circumstances of the women seeking abortion. For these women, their circumstances are driving them to choose abortion over parenting, whether those circumstances be their relationship, financial situation, or career aspirations.
Between not choosing to become pregnant in the first place and women’s difficult circumstances, the assumption is that the solution is to be, well, un-pregnant.
The lie of abortion: the unchosen pregnancy is the problem
Abortion at its core sees the pre-born child as a problem that needs to be erased. But women who seek abortions are capable of parenting, as the vast majority of the women denied abortions prove. The fallout out from this misidentification of the problem means that the real problems women face are not being addressed.
This came out in reading Martina’s story. Despite seemingly being sure of her choice to abort, she could not stop crying at the clinic. To comfort herself she read through journals that contained stories of previous clients. “One story I read, a woman’s husband wouldn’t let her get birth control, and she kept getting pregnant. Since she was able to pay for abortions with cash, he didn’t know that she was continually getting abortions because she continued to get pregnant. And they already had, like three or four kids. He basically thought that he was right, she didn’t need to have birth control, they just won’t get pregnant again, you know? But no, she had three additional abortions because he wouldn’t let her get birth control.”
Martina was comforted by this story and others like it. She concludes her personal reflections saying, “Hopefully we can agree that it’s difficult no matter what you choose, and people just need to be supportive. Women don’t need to be told this isn’t the right choice.”
In Martina’s eyes the woman in the story was facing troubling circumstances that necessitated abortion as the solution. Rather than either leaving or standing up to her husband, having a clear conversation about the consequences of their actions, this woman used abortion to continue her life as it was. How is that helping her? I’ll agree with Martina that it is a difficult situation, but I will most emphatically question why allowing the situation to continue is supposed to be good for that woman.
Where adoption fits into this narrative
The assumption that difficult circumstances are fixed by abortion is also starkly challenged when Dr. Foster discusses women who were denied abortion due to being past the gestational limit allowed at the clinic. Dr. Foster had an expectation that the problem would remain the unchosen pregnancy, and the women would still seek a way out of becoming a parent. And yet, she was “surprised how few of the women who wanted to abort their pregnancies decided to place the child for adoption when they were unable to get an abortion.”
Dr. Foster, seemingly logically, assumed that women who wanted abortions would still not want to parent even if they were denied abortions. She assumed that abortion and adoption are comparable alternatives – both ways to avoid parenthood. But the data doesn’t bear this out. Instead, a week after being denied an abortion, only 14% of women were considering adoption and only 9% actually chose that route.
One of the main reasons that women didn’t choose adoption was because they ended up with more support from their community than they thought they would have – their circumstances weren’t as bad as they thought. All this points to the reality that Dr. Foster’s concern over the “chosen” nature of a woman’s position is overstated and we should be paying a lot more attention to women’s circumstances.
To be clear, adoption is a radical, loving, pro-life option. But generally, women don’t choose adoption even when denied an abortion. Abortion and adoption are not natural alternatives to each other, as they are based on very different foundations. Adoption, like parenting, at its core acknowledges the value of the child before and after birth and seeks to place that child in a setting grounded in self-sacrificial love.
Let’s offer real solutions
If adoption is not a common choice for women denied abortion, we need to again consider real challenging circumstances and real solutions. Frederica Mathewes-Green discusses the influence of circumstances in her book Real Choices. She points out that the appeal of abortion is like that of an eraser. “Denial is an attractive response to many difficult situations in life, and abortion serves denial better than adoption or childrearing would.” There can be a desire to return to a life just like it was before. But the problem is that such a rewind is impossible.
In the meantime, the pro-life movement doesn’t want to erase or deny women’s real problems. We don’t want to allow abusive relationships to continue, or leave women unsupported and alone. We want to come alongside each woman and help her realize her potential. She might think she can never finish school and have a child, or never have a career and have a child, or a whole host of barriers. But the pro-life message is that women can succeed without erasing their children.
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.
That is the conclusion of Renate Klein, an anti-abortion pill, pro-surgical abortion activist. This combination makes her preface in the second edition of RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals an interesting contribution to the discussion around the abortion pill. She’s not arguing for the humanity of the pre-born child. She’s arguing for women.
Klein goes into depth on the excruciating experience that is the abortion pill. This includes the extreme pain and bleeding that are normal, as well as possible complications including ongoing pregnancy requiring a follow up surgical abortion, hemorrhaging, retained parts of the pre-born child or placenta, or infection.
What a woman sees after the abortion pill
Klein describes the “profound difference” between the abortion pill and a surgical abortion as “the likelihood with chemical abortion that women will actually see the expelled embryo in their sanitary pad or toilet, and although an embryo is still small at 7 or 9 weeks (1-1.5 cm), it is recognizable as the possibility of a child that has now ceased to exist.”
These of course are euphemisms. “Embryo” and “the possibility of a child” are attempts to dehumanize the pre-born child. Referring to abortion as a process that “expels” a child that “has now ceased to exist” is a neat way to describe the brutal ending of a human life.
But even with these careful ways of describing what is going on, Klein understands that it is distressing for women to face the truth. “[T]hose women who understand the precise action of RU-486 – that it stops nutrients reaching the implanted embryo – might be very disturbed by this method of terminating their growing embryo’s existence.” That is, women who understand that they are starving their child and, causing her death are upset.
Klein goes on to cite a 1998 UK study which found that “women who saw the foetus were most susceptible to psychological distress, including nightmares, flashbacks, and unwanted thoughts related to the procedure.”
What do you do with what you see?
It turns out that women are not comfortable with seeing what they are doing to their child. Seeing the reality means they can’t pretend not to know what abortion is. When faced with the body of the pre-born child who died due to their choice, women are distressed.
The question is what women will do with this distress. Klein thinks the solution is to just offer a surgical abortion where she doesn’t have to see her child. But does it really help women to shield them from the truth? The abortion pill provides women the opportunity to face reality. One such women is Elizabeth who told her story in the Missing Project series. Since seeing her pre-born child after taking the abortion pill, she has used her to story to try to reach others and help prevent other women from going through the same experience she did.
Let’s hope more women who see the truth will use their voice to help end this injustice.
This was my main take away after reading Erika Bachiochi’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy called “Embodied Equality: Debunking Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights”. We are humans. And this has implications for how we approach abortion and gender equality. You can read the entire paper here. It’s written in an American legal context, but she highlights two human traits that have profound implications for abortion regardless of where you live.
#1: Humans have Physical Bodies
Some argue that abortion restrictions are inherently sexist because they only limit women. Bachiochi’s response is very simple – abortion restrictions are not sexist just because it is those with female bodies who get pregnant. This is biological reality, not a sexist limitation imposed by law. It is only women who gestate and give birth.
But is biology unfair here? Do abortion restrictions place a burden on women that is not placed on men, limiting women’s ability to “define the content of their present and future lives”? Putting aside for the moment the way this denigrates motherhood as a future, this argument points out that, while men can walk away from the procreative act seemingly without consequence, women cannot. Therefore, women need abortion to even the playing field – to achieve gender equality.
But that argument assumes something about equality. To even the playing field it presumes “one sex as the standard for equality: the male sex.” But why are we using the male biology and experience as our ideal? Especially when doing so only perpetuates inequality, rather than addressing the real cause of it.
Bachiochi explains: “The legal availability of abortion has worked to detach men further from the potentialities of female sexuality, offering them the illusion that sex can finally be completely consequence-free. The trouble is that, for women, sex that results in pregnancy is fraught with consequence. Women must act affirmatively – and destructively – if they are to imitate male reproductive autonomy.”
Promoting abortion as the equalizer has not helped women. Rather, it elevates the male biology and discourages exploring solutions that might actually better women’s lives when they are facing unplanned pregnancies. In this context, for women to achieve equality they must undergo an invasive medical procedure and sacrifice their child’s life.
This brings us to the second observation by Bachiochi.
#2: Humans are Relational
A pregnant woman is not in a bubble by herself. There is the child’s father. There are her parents, his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers, and the list goes on. The reality is that we are all a part of a relational community whether we realize it or not.
And when it comes to pregnancy, a child is inextricably physically and relationally linked to her mother.
We have no trouble recognizing this connection after a child is born. We acknowledge that parents have duties, legal duties, to at least provide their children the basic necessities of life and hopefully much more in terms of physical and relational needs. We don’t base this duty on the parent’s consenting to take on that duty, nor are they able to revoke consent on a whim. Rather, we recognize a child’s dependence on their parents as placing special obligations on the stronger party.
This is because humans are relational creatures. At our very core, and most starkly from our earliest moments of existence, we depend on those around us. And others rely on us. How do we treat these relationships? Are they extinguishable based on our choice? Or are they something to respect and value?
This is where Bachiochi gets into relational feminism which posits that we are “fundamentally embedded in relationships of interdependence.” This theory rejects the modern view of humans as radically autonomous individuals and argues that the interdependent relationships we have are not to be scorned, but respected. Quoting one feminist, she says: “We are born into some obligations, and some are born to us.”
Abortion ignores this relational reality. It ignores the fact that whether a mother chose it or not, she is relationally interconnected with her child. Abortion ruptures that connection with fatal consequence to the more dependent party. That is a tragedy. The fact that abortion restrictions act to protect the more dependent party is a good thing for both the child and the woman. Whether or not we always enjoy the relationships around us, we cannot ignore them.
In no way does Bachiochi suggest this is always easy for women. She points out that it “may not lessen the hardship of bearing yet another child, or a first child before one feels prepared.” But the alternative is to ignore that we are physical and relational humans. The pro-life movement is well versed in the cost of ignoring the pre-born child’s humanity. And there is most definitely a cost in ignoring women’s humanity.
Abortion might seem to make women more like men, but at the cost of her humanity. You cannot deny the female biology and the reality of the relational context around and within her without dire consequences.
But opening up to the reality of what it means to be a human – and what it means to be a woman – opens you up to all that this life has to offer. As Bachiochi describes, “In the experience of most women, pregnancy is a serious challenge, but one well worth the sacrifices made because of the profundity of the enterprise.”
We’re in the pro-life movement because we believe in human rights. HUMAN rights. Not hypothetical rights. Not ignore-what-it-means-to-be-human rights. But humans-with-bodies-and-relationships-rights. Human rights – with all the joy, the hardship, and the profound beauty that accompanies being a human.
These bubble zone laws continue to be implemented in the complete absence of real complaints against the pro-life presence around abortion clinics. It is generally agreed that the demonstrations or prayer vigils are peaceful. It is not the actions of those present that garners criticism: it is the message. They claim the very message that a pre-born child is a human being is what makes women feel intimidated or harassed, even if it is only displayed silently on a sign.
In a committee hearing prior to the new law being introduced, both pro-life and pro-choice groups were given the opportunity to speak. While a pro-life representative spoke about the peaceful nature of the protests, and the need for freedom of speech, the focus from the pro-choice presenters was on how women seeking abortion (and the doctors providing them) feel when they have their decisions questioned.
Dr. Melissa Brooks, an abortion provider and clinic director in Nova Scotia, sees the bubble zone as necessary because of what pro-life protestors represent: the opinion that abortion is a wrong choice. That opinion, it seems, is not one that can safely be shared with women who are considering an abortion.
“Their point of being there, the reason why they want to stand in front of the clinic is because they want those women to feel shame,” the CBC quotes Dr. Brooks as saying. “They want those women to feel more stigmatized and they want to harass those women. And their, also, intention is to intimidate people like me and the nurses that I work with.”
Does Dr. Brooks honestly believe that people take time out of their lives to stand at abortion clinics because they want to make people feel bad about themselves? Those people are there because they care so deeply that they are willing to offer resources, support, and information to anyone who will listen. They are there because they value life – the lives of the women entering that clinic, and the lives of the pre-born children they carry in with them.
So why do those advocating for bubble zones continually focus on the shame women feel when confronted with a pro-life presence? Do we feel shame about doing what we believe is right? Shame comes from a pricked conscience. Shame is not something pro-life protestors can “make” women feel. These women are making a moral choice. If they feel shame, it is not because someone disagrees with their choice, but because at some level they recognize their choice is wrong.
Abortion is a choice. A choice that is easier, maybe, than the very hard choice of parenting. Simpler, maybe, than dealing with the relationship consequences of keeping a pregnancy. Faster, certainly, than carrying to term and giving a child up for adoption. But, morally and ethically, it has the power to make people feel shame because it is shameful to say that your choice is worth more than someone else’s life, that your future is worth wiping out someone else’s future.
Another bubble zone goes into effect in Canada, limiting free speech. It isolates women from a message that may stop them from making a choice they will deeply regret. It isolates them from information and support during one of the most difficult decisions of their lives. So maybe it makes access to abortion feel a little easier to some. But what abortion providers, abortion seekers and lawmakers need to realize is that a bubble zone will never be effective in making the feeling of shame go away.
]]>
This law, if passed, prohibits “interference” around an abortion clinic. But interference is not defined as physical aggression, but by its content. The definition includes simply informing people (Section (2)(f)(iii)). It does not target certain ways of informing people. Nor does it target misinformation. Rather it prohibits any information about abortion. Beyond the obvious Charter freedom of expression issues, in what way does the Nova Scotia government think it is improving the life of its citizens by banning information?
It goes on to ban “protest” (Section 2(j)). Again, it is not the nature of the protest that is prohibited, but the content – specifically banning only one side of the abortion issue. Consider this scenario: two people could be standing next to each other, one with a sign that says, “I regret my abortion” and one with a sign that says “I do not regret my abortion”. Under Bill 242, only the pro-life sign is illegal. What reason does a government have to say all pro-life speech, regardless of how peacefully presented, needs to be banned on certain public streets?
This does nothing to help women. Shielding women from information regarding the humanity of her pre-born child or from information regarding options she might have does not help her. Nor does pretending that as country we are all ambivalent to her choice help her. We care about her and the life of her pre-born child. Women deserve to know this.
But this law suggests that women are incapable of handling this. Nova Scotian women do not need protection from information and beliefs they may disagree with. Protecting women’s rights cannot include fining and imprisoning other women who are pro-life. Yet, that is what this bill does. It says to women who disagree about the morality of abortion, and want to express that belief, that their freedom of expression does not matter.
If you live in Nova Scotia we are asking you to write your MLA encouraging them not to support this law, but to stand for the free expression of the pro-life message.
]]>This observation was made by Caitlin Flanagan in a recent Atlantic article in a rare attempt at fairly describing both the pro-abortion and the pro-life argument. She does indeed use a picture – a 3D ultrasound of 12-week pre-born child with fingers, toes, eyelid, and ears. “She can hiccup—that tiny, chest-quaking motion that all parents know,” Flanagan says, highlighting the humanity of the pre-born child and acknowledging the destructive nature of abortion.
And yet, she views legal abortion as a necessity.
The many words Flanagan uses to describe the pro-abortion argument revolve around heart wrenching stories of back alley abortions. They may be hard to read, but it is important to face their reality. While the number of illegal abortions and resulting fatalities prior to-legal abortion are often grossly exaggerated, I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the specific stories Flanagan tells.
And it is a repeat of these stories of deaths due to illegal abortions that Flanagan views as inevitable if pro-life legislation is put in place. Completely accepting the humanity of the child, she still argues for abortion to “save” women, saying, “We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.”
Flanagan speaks of accepting the loss – but who is supposed to be accepting it? A mother and a father certainly lose their child to abortion. Grandparents lose their grandchildren. Siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles all lose a family member. Communities lose members. As a society we lose a part of us. Maybe Flanagan is even speaking of her personal loss. We all lose to abortion. Do we accept this?
And there is one who loses all. After all, a “safe” legal abortion is never safe for the baby. Is Flanagan speaking on behalf the baby when she accepts their loss?
As a pro-life movement, we should absolutely be concerned about back alley abortions – we have no wish to lose women. We counter back alley abortion for the same reason we counter all abortions. It is not just legal abortions that stop a beating heart – we have the same objection to illegal abortions. We share the pro-abortion movement’s abhorrence for back alley abortions.
If abortion was illegal, we would still have work to do. We would still be busy educating about the humanity of the pre-born child, we would be encouraging the prosecution of those performing back alley abortions (characters Flanagan glosses over in her stories), and we would still be there to come alongside women facing unplanned pregnancies – whether it be with financial support, counsel, or just a friendly conversation.
The pro-life movement does not accept losing a growing baby, nor are we going to accept losing the women. To suggest that the pro-life movement is okay with back alley abortions is to misunderstand both the value of pre-born life as well as our valuing of women.
]]>