In the first section of that paper, we go over what it means that Canada has no abortion laws – that abortions can be performed at any gestational age, and for any reason, without legal repercussion.
But the meat of the position paper is in the appendices. Appendix 1 shows our thorough attempt to find a law in any federal or provincial regulations. Then Appendix 2 includes quotes from a wide variety of journal articles or books that all say the same thing: Canada has no abortion law.
For example, Erin Nelson, a law professor, wrote in Canadian Health Law and Policy – the textbook recommended by my health law professor at Law School – “Canada is the sole Western nation without any criminal (or direct governmental) control over the provision of abortion services. Under current Canadian law, a woman may have an abortion at any time, for any reason.”
Peter Hogg, Canada’s leading constitutional law expert, lays out some history: “In Morgentaler, the restrictions on abortion in the Criminal Code were struck down as unduly depriving pregnant women of liberty or security of the person, contrary to section 7 of the Charter. In obiter, the Court added that a less restrictive abortion law could possibly be upheld. In 1990, a bill which would have implemented a less restrictive abortion law was introduced into Parliament. However that law was defeated on a tied vote in the Senate, and the divisive issue of abortion has never been revisited, either in terms of a new law, or even in terms of the formal repeal of the law that was declared unconstitutional in 1988. While neither the Charter nor the Court precluded a legislative response to the Morgentaler decision, the abortion issue is so politically explosive that it eludes democratic consensus.”
These are two legal experts in Canada. They are not pro-life or pro-abortion activists. They simply recognize that Canada has no abortion law.
There are also medical professionals who say the same thing, including Dr. Powell with the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto who writes for increased access to abortion. She wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Despite the fact that no law in Canada currently limits the provision of abortion services in publicly funded hospitals, abortion remains a discretionary procedure subject to local hospital policy and the availability of physicians.” She rightly points out that some hospitals refuse to do late-term abortions, but there is no law compelling them to do so.
In fact, this is a fact that was even touted by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who had presentations titled “Canada: Proof that no country needs abortion laws.”
All of these sources and more are cited in our position paper. Our message that “Canada has no abortion laws” is accurate.
I think the reason people struggle to accept this is because of how extreme a position it is – Canada is the only democratic country in the world with no abortion law. Frankly, it’s unbelievable. But it is the sad truth.
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.
When will the Canadian public wake up to the deeply contradictory stance of staying home to protect the vulnerable, while keeping abortion clinics open to kill the vulnerable?
Recognizing the value of life
Earlier this month, groups of university students ignored social distancing recommendations to party in Florida for their spring break. The online reaction was harsh and unequivocal: go home. Think of others. Health care workers continue to share posts asking Canadians to stay home so that they do not become overwhelmed with patients. Canadians have responded with appreciation and applause for these selfless frontline workers.
An article on Global News stated that this virus is “bringing out the worst in a minority of people, even while others practice generosity and social distancing.” Isn’t it interesting that they characterize “the worst in people” as thinking only of themselves, at the possible expense of the vulnerable? The pro-life movement has always made this point: when it comes to the lives of others, we as society have a responsibility. All lives are valuable, and those who are more vulnerable need more protection.
The vast majority of those dying from COVID-19 around the world are elderly, and had some pre-existing health condition. We recognize the vulnerability of these people. Those of us who are less vulnerable to serious illness still stay home as much as possible, and look for ways to support those who are quarantined or isolated. We willingly close schools, stores, and churches. These are radical, selfless measures that show our recognition of and willingness to live in community.
A pro-life response
The response we see to COVID-19 is essentially a pro-life response. The majority of Canadians are willing to accept significant inconvenience, stress, and change in their own lives for the benefit of the lives of others. This is no different than being faced with an unplanned pregnancy and being willing to accept inconvenience, stress and change in your life for the sake of the life of someone else. Whether you are the one with an unplanned pregnancy or whether it is someone else in your life, we all have a role in helping the most vulnerable.
Perhaps the only difference is in the wave of societal support for the restrictive measures being used to fight COVID-19. Perhaps if we could see that same wave of support around a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, we would see the same willingness to accept restriction and to adapt in a way that honours the value of all life. Protecting life should always have societal support.
Opportunity and responsibility
The response to COVID-19 contradicts the idea that individual autonomy trumps the collective good. COVID-19 will likely affect someone we know. Abortion likely already has affected someone we know. In this way, both also affect us. We are all connected as part of the human family and, in either case, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility. These are opportunities to shine light into darkness, to make someone feel valued, to care selflessly. There is also a responsibility, to speak up about the value of life, to be willing to sacrifice in order to give support, to point to what is good and what is wrong.
Hearts and minds
The sweeping, dramatic measures taken in response to COVID-19 have shown what Canadians are capable of doing. They have shown our ability to be selfless, our willingness to give up some freedoms for the greater good of the lives and health of others. We have seen a heightened recognition of our connectedness, and the impact our actions and choices have on the lives of others.
The care shown for our vulnerable neighbours in response to this pandemic is heartening. It reminds us that hearts and minds can be changed, and maybe the change needed isn’t as dramatic as we may have thought. Now we pray that hearts and minds may be open to see the connection between care for the born and care for the pre-born, and to be willing to make some radical changes to how Canada operates in order that all members of the human family may have their best chance at life.
]]>