The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 10:00 EDT.

It will be livestreamed at this link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHLIU64fkfU

“We are looking forward to participating in this latest case dealing with the freedom of expression as it relates to pro-life advertising,” said Ms. Ewert. “In addition, I look forward to presenting the court with arguments as to why Ad Standards is unsuitable to weigh in on Charter values and why the City of Guelph erred in relying substantially on Ad Standards in making their decision to remove three bus ads purchased by Guelph and Area Right to Life.”

Ms. Ewert will be available for comment throughout the day and can be reached at tabitha@test.weneedalaw.ca or 604-220-1258.

For immediate release

Ottawa, ON – Today Members of Parliament voted against sending Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act to committee 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. Despite Erin O’Toole’s emphatic pro-choice stance and commitment to vote against this bill, exactly two-thirds of his caucus voted in favour of it.

“MP Wagantall is to be commended for bringing the issue of sex selective abortion into the open,” said Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law, which actively supported the bill. “This is an ugly reality in Canada, where girls are aborted simply because they are girls. We need to address sex-based discrimination in every form, including at life’s earliest stages, and MPs missed an important opportunity to do that today.”

During the debate on this bill, speakers from all parties indicated they opposed the practice of sex selective abortion, yet, in the name of women’s rights, they were unwilling to take a stand that would limit abortions that target women.

“It was evident in the debates that while Canadians are having ongoing conversations about abortion, elected lawmakers seem unprepared for it. Most Canadians support common sense abortion restrictions, including a restriction on sex selective abortion. There can be nuance in restricting abortion in a way that many in Parliament do not yet acknowledge,” continued Ewert. “We look forward to when Parliament catches up to where Canadians are already at and accepts a prohibition on such an overtly sexist practice.”

MP Wagantall and her colleagues introduced dozens of petitions representing thousands of 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. Pink flag displays and lawn signs popped up around the country in support of this bill.

“This is clearly an issue that resonates with Canadians,” said Ewert. “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.”

-30-

For further comment or for hi-res images, please contact
Tabitha Ewert (EDT) at (604) 220-1258 // info@test.weneedalaw.ca

Ottawa, ON – On May 12, NDP MLA Jennifer Bowes introduced The Protecting a Woman’s Right to Access Abortion Services Act in the Saskatchewan legislature. A similar law is currently being challenged as an unconstitutional limitation of freedom of expression in Ontario. “One of the obvious issues with bubble zone laws is how one-sided they are. It’s not about people holding signs generally, it depends on the message on the sign. It is illegal to show disapproval of abortion, but not approval of it,” explained Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law a national pro-life advocacy group. “This means two women could stand side by side one with a sign that says, “I don’t regret my abortion”, and the other with a sign that says, “I regret my abortion”, and only the latter is illegal despite both being a statement of personal experience.”

Beyond the impact on those wishing to express their pro-life beliefs, these laws do nothing to help women. “It is already illegal to intimidate or harass women under the Criminal Code regardless of where they are,” Ewert explained. “All this adds is preventing women from hearing one specific viewpoint: that “human rights for all human beings” extends to the smallest human beings, those in the womb.”

This law is at it’s core anti-women. “Every woman deserves to have access to information about abortion. Not just information an abortion clinic might give her about the actual procedure, but information about the humanity of the pre-born and the availability of support should she wish to parent. Informed choices require information. Silencing one message doesn’t increase autonomy, it decreases the information and potential support available to women.” Ewert explained.

“The pro-life movement is about informing women. Bubble zones don’t protect women, they disadvantage them by silencing information.”

-30-

For further comment please contact
Tabitha Ewert (EDT) at (604) 220-1258 // info@test.weneedalaw.ca

For immediate release

Ottawa, ON – Budget 2021 continued this Liberal government’s fixation on abortion – but in ways that anti-abortion groups can support.

The recent Liberal budget addressed a problem the pro-life movement has been highlighting for years: the lack of information regarding abortion. “In Canada, most abortions are funded by the government, and yet the manner in which we maintain statistics is in complete disarray,” explained Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law, a national campaign that seeks to influence policy to protect pre-born children. “We don’t even know how many abortions are being performed, let alone who is having abortions and why. I’m hopeful that some of the $7.6 million that Budget 2021 earmarks for capturing data related to sexual and reproductive health will go towards making sure we have complete and accurate information regarding abortion here in Canada.”

Currently, the Canadian Institute of Health Information reports abortion statistics annually, but they note the incomplete nature of their data specifically because abortion clinics are not required to submit information. “Canadians pay for abortions and therefore Canadians deserve to know where that money is going,” Ewert notes. “””In order to better address some of the difficult circumstances women face it is necessary to understand the demographics around abortion in Canada. Some Canadian studies have shown that women seeking abortions are more likely to have experience intimate partner violence than women giving birth. A problem like that should be understood and addressed so that we can ensure women are protected from violence.”

The budget also included $45 million over three years to “fund community-based organizations that make sexual and reproductive health care information and services more accessible for vulnerable populations.” We Need a Law hopes that this will include assisting the many pregnancy resource centres across Canada that support women facing unplanned pregnancy and provide much needed resources during early childhood.

“There are many pregnancy care centres across the country that seek to provide a safe environment for women. Women can come and receive information about pregnancy and sexual health and talk through their options free of charge,” explained Ewert. “They also provide real help to women during pregnancy or early parenting with free supplies like diapers, clothes, and other essential items. These centres are fueled by volunteers and donations. We would love to see their value recognized by our government. We need to ensure that women are empowered to choose parenting.”

-30-

For further comment or for hi-res images, please contact Tabitha Ewert (EDT) at (604) 220-1258 // info@test.weneedalaw.ca (mailto:info@test.weneedalaw.ca)

For immediate release 

Ottawa, ON – Tabitha Ewert, Legal Counsel for We Need a Law, will join MP Cathay Wagantall for a press conference this morning at 10:00AM (EDT) in advance of the first hour of debate for Wagantall’s Bill C-233, the Sex Selective Abortion Act. This act would prohibit sex selective abortion, making a strong statement about Canada’s commitment to ending sex-based discrimination from the earliest stages.

“Sex selective abortion is the practice of ending a child’s life after discovering the sex of the baby. It disproportionately targets girls and has been an international problem for decades,” said Ms. Ewert. “It is unacceptable for even one girl to be targeted because of her sex. The Canadian Medical Association Journal has published articles showing that this does in fact happen in Canada, meaning we need Parliament to act.”

Ewert is excited to see this bill come to the floor in Parliament. “It has been over a decade since Parliament had a reasoned debate about abortion restrictions, and MP Wagantall is to be commended for finding a place of common ground between pro-choice and pro-life Canadians,” she says. “Polls consistently show that this is one aspect of abortion we as Canadians can agree on: it is wrong to abort a girl simply because she is a girl. We need to give our medical professionals a tool to say no to performing these types of abortions.”

We Need a Law, a grassroots campaign that advocates for legal protections for pre-born children, has been advocating against sex selective abortion for several years. “We are honoured to stand alongside Ms. Wagantall as she works to protect pre-born girls from being targeted based on their sex,” said Ewert. “We are looking forward to seeing all Parliamentarians support this bill and put their commitment to equality of the sexes into action.”

The Sex Selective Abortion Act is scheduled to have its first hour of debate this Wednesday, April 14.

-30-

For further comment or interviews, please contact Tabitha Ewert at (604) 220-1258 // info@test.weneedalaw.ca

For immediate release 

London, ON – Ads that read, “Canada has no abortion laws” run on buses in London, Ontario until mid-December.

The ad garnered controversy when it was first run by a local group in 2018. Despite the absence of a law against abortion being a rather basic legal fact, pro-abortion activist groups directed supporters to issue complaints against the ads. “It wasn’t what was said that caused the controversy, but the fact that a pro-life group said it,” said Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law, the pro-life organization that designed the ads. “This is a fact that has been true since the 1988 Morgentaler Supreme Court decision, and has been said multiple times by legal and media sources – and even by the director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, the group that instigated the complaints!”

Due to this activist pressure, Advertising Standards Canada – a non-governmental, advisory body for Canadian advertisers – instructed that the message be taken down wherever it was posted despite referring to them as “literally true.”

London’s Transit Commission listened to Ad Standards and took down the bus ads mid-contract. At that time, the local group that placed the ads, with support from the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada, commenced legal action against the city for violating their freedom of expression by breaking their contract based on advice from a non-governmental body. Advertising Standards’ decisions have been arbitrary and contradictory, and they have no accountability or external appeal mechanism making them an unreliable voice. “Canadian courts have consistently held that as a private body, Advertising Standard’s self-created Code cannot replace municipal government’s responsibility to consider their Charter obligations and evaluate the advertisement for themselves,” Ewert explained.

Both parties recently reached a legal settlement that includes the re-posting of the ads. “The re-running of these bus ads is a win-win situation for everyone,” said Ewert. “The pro-life movement is able to use their freedom to express their beliefs in London, and the city of London proves itself to be a place that does not shut down discussion on contentious issues, but respects the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.”

Note: See joint statement from the London Transit Commission, ARPA Oxford, and the Association for Reformed Political Action here.

-30-

For further comment or interviews, please contact Tabitha Ewert at (604) 220-1258 // tabitha@test.weneedalaw.ca

For immediate release

London, ON – Ads are going back up on city buses in London, Ontario today that read, “Canada has no abortion laws.”

These ads come at the same time as the city is facing conflict over the distribution of pro-life flyers, with dueling pro-life and pro-abortion petitions online calling for the London City Council to consider bylaws. The two pro-life campaigns are unrelated, but both are opportunities for the city to display its commitment to freedom of expression, including pro-life expression.

The ad garnered controversy when it was first run by a local group in 2018. Despite the absence of a law against abortion being a rather basic legal fact, pro-abortion activist groups directed supporters to issue complaints against the ads. “It wasn’t what was said that caused the controversy, but the fact that a pro-life group said it,” said Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law, the pro-life organization that designed the ads. “This is a fact that has been true since the 1988 Morgentaler Supreme Court decision, and has been said multiple times by legal and media sources – and even by the director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, the group that instigated the complaints!”

Due to this activist pressure, Advertising Standards Canada – a non-governmental, advisory body for Canadian advertisers – instructed that the message be taken down wherever it was posted. In their report following the complaints, Ad Standards referred to the ads as “inaccurate and misleading” despite being “literally true.”

London’s Transit Commission listened to Ad Standards and took down the bus ads mid-contract. At that time, the local group that placed the ads, with support from the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada, commenced legal action against the city for violating their freedom of expression by breaking their contract based on advice from a non-governmental body.

Both parties recently reached a legal settlement that includes the re-posting of the ads. “The re-running of these bus ads is a win-win situation for everyone,” said Ewert. “The pro-life movement is able to use their freedom to express their beliefs in London, and the city of London proves itself to be a place that does not shut down discussion on contentious issues, but respects the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.”

Note: See joint statement from the London Transit Commission, ARPA Oxford, and the Association for Reformed Political Action here.

-30-

For further comment or interviews, please contact Tabitha Ewert at (604) 220-1258 // tabitha@test.weneedalaw.ca

For immediate release

Ottawa, ON – On September 24, the Human Rights Monument will be surrounded by pink flags commemorating the victims of sex selective abortion. Despite our commitment to gender equality, the practice of sex selective abortion is legal and happens in Canada. MP Cathay Wagantall and other Members of Parliament will be attending the flag display. MP Wagantall put forward a private member’s bill earlier this year to criminalize this discriminatory practice. We Need a Law, a pro-life organization advocating for laws restricting abortion, heartily supports Wagantall’s proposed Sex Selective Abortion Act.

Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law hopes the bill will draw attention to an injustice facing girls in Canada. “This issue needs to be brought to the light and addressed head on,” Ewert said. “Sex selection happens because of and through sex selective abortions. We cannot claim to be advancing women’s rights when women are being disproportionately targeted by abortion. We need this national conversation and a clear law that prohibits sex selective abortion.”

Several research studies over the past few years have shown that sex selective abortion is indeed happening in Canada. Ms. Ewert pointed out the inconsistencies in Canadian law as it pertains to discrimination based on sex. “The Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibits sex selection when it comes to in vitro fertilization. But once the embryo develops into a fetus, sex selection is freely allowed via abortion.”

Polls show that the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to the idea of sex-selective abortion, and We Need a Law calls on government officials to enact laws reflecting this. “There is much that divides us as country and especially on the issue of abortion. But we can all come together in condemning sex selective abortion.” said Ewert.

Details

Event: Pink flag display commemorating the victims of sex selective abortions
Date: September 24, 2020
Time: 11:00AM – 1:00PM
Location: Human Rights Monument (220 Elgin Street) (MP Wagantall will be available to the media)

-30-

For further comment or interviews, please contact Tabitha Ewert (EDT) at (604) 220-1258 // tabitha@test.weneedalaw.ca

For immediate release – Ottawa, ON

The Progressive Conservatives’ majority win is good news for the health needs of the citizens of New Brunswick. During the election, abortion activists drew a lot of attention to Clinic 554, which is seeking government funding for privately done abortions. This push was led by the owner of Clinic 554, a man directly set to profit from any funding. “This activism was never about the health needs of the province, but about pushing to fund more abortions,” said Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for pro-life organization We Need a Law. “We are thankful to see that New Brunswick voters did not accept this private clinic’s claim that abortion should be top priority for healthcare spending.”

“We hope to see Premier Higgs remain firm in his government’s decision not to fund privately performed abortions despite pressure from the owner.” Ewert continued. “Likely that pressure will not end as the owner has lobbied for both the federal government and the courts to interfere in a matter that is constitutionally under the provincial government’s jurisdiction.”

The owner of Clinic 554 claims to be pursuing a lawsuit against the provincial government under the Canada Health Act, but that piece of federal legislation designed to give financial assistance to the provinces, not to regulate provincial healthcare. This has been consistently affirmed by Canadian courts. “The provinces decide how to administer healthcare. Just because the owner of Clinic 554 has been unsuccessful in getting this government to fund the abortions he performs does not justify other authorities interfering.”

Ewert concluded, “The decision to prioritize other health needs over more abortions was presented to the voters of New Brunswick, and the results go against the financial interests of Clinic 554. That decision should be respected.”

We Need a Law has published a Position Paper clarifying the role of the Canada Health Act on the decision to fund private abortion clinics, including references to relevant Canadian court decisions. The paper can be accessed here.

-30-

For further comment or images to accompany story, please contact
Tabitha Ewert (EDT) at (604) 220-1258 // info@test.weneedalaw.ca