Dr. Foster, in her book The Turnaway Study, begins and ends with the assumption that choice is good for women. This represents a pretty standard expression of pro-choice philosophy and it is worth emphasizing – it is the act of choosing that is considered positive. There is no inquiry into what is being chosen or how that choice bears out. As long as she chose it, it is good. This is not to say they ignore regret, but it assumes that “at least I chose it” will be a comfort.
This philosophy comes out in the chapter on mental health. Before comparing the results of women denied abortions verses women who had abortions, Dr. Foster hypothesizes about why abortion might or might not harm women’s mental health. This idea of “choice” makes both the positive and negative list.
Under ‘why abortion might be negative for women’, Dr. Foster mused that “an unintended pregnancy is a moment when your life feels like it is out of your control. Your body is creating another life against your will.” She follows this up with “having an abortion is something that women choose to do” as a reason it wouldn’t negatively impact women’s health. Notice the assumption. The unintended pregnancy is a problem because she didn’t choose it, while the abortion is not a problem because at least she chose it.
Dr. Foster does admit that an unintended pregnancy does not necessarily translate to an unwanted child, but for her it is all about what the woman chooses, concluding: “Abortion is not just about a woman’s right versus an embryo’s or fetus’s rights; it’s also about whether women get to have children when they are ready to care for them.” She even goes so far as promoting “the idea that personal bodily autonomy is a universal human right, as are the rights to have children or not have children.” Choice is foundational and it excludes examination of what is being chosen.
How you view life
This choice-focused philosophy naturally follows the ideal of an independent, autonomous life. Autonomy is a word that translates into auto (= self) and nomous (= law). Autonomy is self law. If your ideal life is one in which you, and you alone, choose and govern for yourself, then Dr. Foster is right. Being pregnant against your choice will harm your mental health, and taking back the choice by ending the pregnancy will alleviate that harm.
I am putting aside for a moment the reality that women generally choose to do the act that gets them pregnant. For the sake of assessing Dr. Foster’s approach, let’s grant that absurd argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The problem with this philosophy is that once you are pregnant you are not solely an individual. Your life has become inextricably tied to another. We are never primarily independent beings; we are interdependent beings. We are relational creatures in the midst of a web of interconnecting relationships that each come with obligations and pressures.
And we don’t necessarily enter into these relationships by choice. As one scholar put it, “We are born into some obligations, and some are born to us.” You might choose your friends, but you don’t choose your family. Abortion ignores this relational reality. It ignores the fact that whether a mother chose it or not, she is relationally and physically interconnected with her child.
As Erika Bachiochi points out in her article Embodied Equality, we easily acknowledge that parents have duties, legal duties even, to at least provide their children with 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 becomes even more stark in the womb, where a child is completely physically dependent on their mother. Applying consent and the ability to revoke consent in that context has fatal consequences for the weaker party.
Deciding the value of life based on whether you chose it or not strikes me as strange. Especially this year, when we all are finding ourselves in situations that we did not choose in response to Covid-19. I don’t mean to undermine the stress that is felt due to these current unchosen circumstances. But the remarkable finding of The Turnaway Study is that removing that choice does not automatically harm mental health. Just because we are in unchosen circumstance does not make them bad circumstances.
Choice doesn’t end up being the key difference for women
When Dr. Foster concludes that women who had abortions were ‘better off’ than women denied abortions, it is not in the area of mental health. Rather, she is pointing to the fact that pregnancy takes a toll on a woman’s body and raising children costs money. Those differences between women denied abortions and women who had abortions do not come down to choice.
This is seen most starkly in the findings around mental health. Dr. Foster explains “I admit I was surprised by this finding. I expected that raising a child one wasn’t planning to have might be associated with depression or anxiety. But this is not what we found over the long run. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term was not associated with mental health harm. Women are resilient to the experience of giving birth following an unwanted pregnancy, at least in terms of their metal health.”
If choice really is vital for women’s well being, if the harm of unintended pregnancy is that lack of control which can be alleviated by choosing either parenting or abortion, if Gloria Steinem’s endorsement of the book that “without the power to make decision about our own bodies, there is no democracy” were true, then surely we would expect that to come out in the stories of women denied abortions. What we actually see, though, is women changing their minds about wanting the abortion in the first place. While a week after being denied 65% of women surveyed still wanted an abortion, by the child’s first birthday this was down to 7% and five years later it was only 4%.
Remember, these are women who chose abortion. These are women who made it to the abortion clinic, despite travel expenses and the logistics of actually getting there. These aren’t women who just thought about abortion, these are women who made tangible steps to have an abortion. And yet the vast majority found that this initial choice was not actually what they wanted. In the end, it was not their choice to have the child, and they don’t regret that.
How access to abortion impacts women’s health both mentally and physically is a complex question, as The Turnaway Study reveals. But one thing is very clear: it does not come down to choice. Choosing one way or another is not the deciding factor in what impact abortion has on women.
Dr. Foster ends her book saying that ultimately abortion “is about women’s control over their own lives.” But this is not borne out by the very data included in her book! Her assumed premise leads to a forced conclusion that does an injustice to the real impact of abortion on women.
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.
]]>
In 2018, when we ran our “Canada has no abortion laws” billboard campaign, the result was surprise and incredulity. Surely, people say, there must be a law. It’s a fact most Canadians (up to 80%) don’t know, and something they really need to know when considering where they stand on abortion. When polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are satisfied with our current abortion policies, what does this mean, if the vast majority don’t even know what our current policies are (or, in our case, aren’t)?
Many Canadians believe abortion is only done in the early stages of pregnancy, and they’re okay with that. We aren’t okay with that, but we can generally agree that once a fetus is viable, around 23 weeks or so, they should not be aborted for the same circumstantial reasons used to justify earlier abortions.
Late-term abortion forces people to face the humanity of a pre-born child, and the brutal methods by which abortion is accomplished at this stage. With a pre-born child too large to abort easily, late-term abortions involve multi-day dilation, fetal dismemberment, lethal injections, and inspecting a pile of recognizable body parts to make sure everything came out.
It’s no wonder most doctors want no part in this, one of the main challenges to increasing access.
When we look for common ground with those who support abortion, late-term abortion regularly tops the list. Let’s have this discussion, and talk about exactly when life deserves protection.
]]>
On the official website, it says, “International Women’s Day is not country, group or organisation specific. The day belongs to all groups collectively everywhere. So together, let’s all be tenacious in accelerating gender parity. Collectively, let’s all Press for Progress.”
As an organization committed to advancing pre-born human rights, we don’t just advocate for gender parity, but for human parity. As abortion continues without regulation in Canada, we will continue to press for progress: progress that brings Canada in line with every other democratic nation in the world.
What does this progress look like? It looks like legislation prohibiting abortion when you would just prefer the other sex. It looks like legislation recognizing the violence women may face while pregnant and honoring her choice to carry her child by punishing more severely any crime that harms that child. It looks like an International Standards Law protecting pre-born children after 13 weeks as so many of our European counterparts do without question.
As so many areas show progress, from ultrasound technology to prenatal surgery and treatment options, our legislation needs to keep up. There is no denying the humanity of the pre-born child, and progress means allowing that reality to dictate legal protections. Emotion and a desire for autonomy should not drive public policy.
Gender parity is a noble goal, but human parity is its foundation. On International Women’s Day, do not believe the claim that gender parity must include unrestricted access to abortion. Without human parity, we will never achieve true gender parity.
While each clinic has its own website and slight variations on the FAQs, a brief perusal of the Morgentaler clinic website turns up enough talking points for several articles. Mentioning only a few will give a clear picture of whose best interests the clinic really has in mind.
It is repeatedly mentioned that the actual abortion procedure takes only 5-10 minutes, while the appointment can be expected to take 2-3 hours. “Counselling, ultrasound and a doctor’s exam are usually done in the same visit as your abortion, so you’ll only need to come to our clinic once.” How accommodating, you might think. But if your counselling, ultrasound and doctor’s exam are to be done prior to prepping for and carrying out your procedure, plus we add the 30+ minutes of recovery time before they send you on your way with an empty uterus and still-dilated cervix, how thorough do you think those steps are?
At an abortion clinic, the counselling is geared to one end goal: abortion. You’re here now, we don’t want to re-book you, let’s move this along.
The website goes on to say, “It’s important for you to have reliable and accurate information.” Agreed. Yet the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ page assures potential clients that there is “no research or statistical data to support the belief that having more than one abortion will damage or affect fertility.” No mention is made of the increased risk of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, potential scarring from the procedure, or other side effects that could indeed affect future fertility. Certainly, these complications are rare, but reliable and accurate information means giving the whole truth, not the best version of the truth.
Statistics Canada is then referenced on the website with the assurance that fewer than 1% of abortions results in any complication – this is based on data from 1995. Data from 2015 indicate over 2% of abortions have complications. This may not seem like a huge difference, but using outdated data from more than 20 years ago is a sure sign you do not care all that much what the facts are.
Under the “About Us” section of the website is the slogan, “Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child.” There is clearly an understanding here that they are dealing daily with mothers and children, yet there is a callous lack of care for those lives. Instead, there is flippant, condescending advice such as that given for recovery: “Like most women, you’ll probably feel much better after a light meal.” This brings to mind images of a woman crying in a bucket of ice cream after a bad breakup, as if that will make her feel better.
The general trivializing of the abortion experience contrasts starkly with legal efforts to ensure conflicting opinions are kept at a distance. The Ottawa Morgentaler Clinic recently successfully pushed the Ontario government to enact “bubble zone” legislation so that those who oppose abortion will be banned from expressing that view too close to the clinic.
There is a clear recognition, if a failure to admit, that abortion is more than a quick procedure to have done on your day off, like seeing the dentist. (The repeated referral to the suction tool for emptying the uterus as “much like a dental suction hose” reinforces this feeling of casual flippancy.)
Abortion clinics do not care for women. Rather, the only service they offer is abortion. The questions and answers they provide focus solely on what abortion feels like, what it will cost, how long it will take, what you should wear, and what comfort food to eat after your baby has been removed from your uterus.
Pregnancy care centres, on the other hand, have websites that declare their compassion, concern, and genuine care for women. Is it any wonder Google results continue to favour these places, where close to 99% of clients rank themselves as very satisfied with their experience? A quick scan of an abortion clinic’s website shows a utilitarian ethic focused on efficiency and lack of emotionality. Pregnancy care centers give time, resources, and space for emotion. Only one of these organizations can really be called pro-woman.
]]>Background on the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment
It is the Human Rights Committee’s job to interpret a document called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (or the “Covenant”). The Covenant is a list of human rights that 169 countries have agreed to honour. The Human Rights Committee was created to interpret the Covenant in two main ways. First, individuals can bring their country to the Committee to determine whether a right was breached. Secondly, the Human Rights Committee will issue documents called “General Comments” which elaborate on a right and explain how governments must act to protect the right.
The General Comment in question includes an explanation of the right to life in the context of abortion. The Committee starts from the position that governments cannot legislate abortion in a way that violates the right to life of a pregnant woman. In their opinion, this means governments “must provide safe access to abortion” where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or in cases where the pre-born child suffers from a fatal illness. They go on to compel governments to ensure that women will not “have to undertake unsafe abortions,” and conclude by stating that governments must provide prenatal and post-abortive health care, with no mention of postnatal care.
Commenting on the General Comment
Before finalizing the General Comment, the Human Rights Committee welcomes comments from a variety of sources. As such, we submitted comments on October 5 arguing three main points.
First, we argued that the Human Rights Committee needs to acknowledge the right to life for pre-born children in this General Comment. Arguing that life begins at conception and that human rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of age or size, we pointed out that this is already recognized in the Covenant. This right to life of vulnerable persons needs legal protection.
Secondly, we argued that a correct legal interpretation of the Covenant is consistent with a recognition of the right to life for the pre-born and is inconsistent with a right to abortion. The Human Rights Committee uses vague language creating a broad requirement for governments to provide access to abortion. This interpretation is not grounded in the Covenant nor in international law generally.
Thirdly, we argued the Human Rights Committee was not honouring governments’ ability to regulate abortion independently. There are countries that restrict access to abortion because they respect the right to life of the pre-born. The inviolable nature of the right to life is a foundational moral question – one that has been and continues to be foundational for the UN itself. The Human Rights Committee does not have the authority to compel governments to ignore the right to life of the pre-born.
Many others also wrote to the Human Rights Committee in defense of the right to life of the pre-born. It is our hope that the Committee will read these submissions and be persuaded to edit the proposed General Comment in such a way that maintains the recognition of the right to life of the pre-born.
Thank you to Tabitha Ewert, articling student with ARPA Canada, for this guest post.
]]>
Who’s asking for increased abortion access?
Apparently no one is actually asking for this increased access to abortion. In 2015, a review was conducted of health care in Alberta’s remote communities. When stakeholders in those communities were questioned, they made no mention of abortion access as a primary (or even secondary!) concern. Instead, they listed priorities such as better access to mental health practitioners, and specialists such as respiratory technologists.
Residents of rural and northern Alberta often travel lengthy distances for trauma care, cancer treatment and other necessary services. With limited funding available, these are the types of services we should be striving to increase access to. We cannot expect all services to be available in all areas across our vast country. A controversial, elective procedure such as abortion should never take priority.
No one is asking for abortion access to be a funding priority. Yet the NDP is trying to make it a priority, taking valuable time and money from things remote communities actually want and need. Pushing the agenda of a small minority at the expense of the greater good needs to be called out and stopped.
Call to Action
If you live in Alberta and don’t want to see increased abortion access in your province, please join us in taking action against Motion 514.
- Contact your local representative. Call their office, or use our Simple Mail on Abortion Access in Alberta. This email can be personalised/changed as much as you like and sent off in less than 10 minutes!
- Sign this petition asking the Members of the Legislative Assembly to defeat this motion.
This motion is expected to come up for vote before the summer. Please take the time to make your voice heard!
]]>