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.
In all but one of the opinion polls publicly available since 2010, a majority of Canadians support at least some law regulating abortion.
Are Canadians pro-choice?
If you look at the polls that ask whether abortion is permissible (i.e. whether you always support a woman’s choice) the numbers are much closer, with an average of 48% supporting a choice at any point, 46% only supporting sometimes, and 5% unsure.
How can we interpret these results? With opinion polls it is always important to look at the methodology, what questions are being asked and who is being asked. For example, if you ask the average Canadian their opinions on abortion you must remember that (according to one poll) 77% of Canadians are unaware that Canada has no abortion law. Saying you support a women’s right to choose may mean something very different if you are assuming a woman can’t legally have a third trimester abortion.
The 2020 Dart poll is an excellent example of this. In that poll 71% believe a woman should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason, but at the same time 70% of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the last trimester and 84% supported a law against sex selective abortion.
This illustrates the difference of being asked “Do you support women?” versus “Do you support the termination of a 24-week old fetus who is viable and can feel pain?” or “Do you support abortion targeting a pre-born child because of her sex?” It may feel good to affirm the first question, but uncomfortable when faced with what this means to the pre-born in the second questions.
Prominent pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur acknowledges this saying, “Virtually everyone supports “freedom” and “privacy” so a large majority of people will agree that women should have both. But if specific questions are asked about exactly when fetal life should be protected, women’s so-called “complete freedom” to have abortions appears to take a sudden nosedive.” Abortion becomes far less palatable when you are faced with the reality of what it does to a pre-born human.
If you really want to know your opinion on abortion, consider the following:
- Do you know that Canada is the only democratic country with no law on abortion?
- Since Canada has no abortion law, do you think it is okay that abortions occur in the last trimester with no legal restrictions?
- Given questions 1 & 2, do you really think any choice a woman makes regarding her pre-born child should be legal?
If you’re not comfortable answering these questions in the affirmative, look at our International Standards Law as a solution. This proposed law would bring Canada in line with all other democratic countries in protecting pre-born children after 13-weeks gestation. It would also allow a waiting period for women seeking an abortion, along with independent counselling to ensure proper informed consent and to screen for coercion or abuse. It’s time we acknowledge that abortion is not only about women, but also about pre-born human beings. It’s time for a law that protects them, while supporting the women who carry them.
Links to opinion polls referenced in tables:
2010 Ipsos Reid
2011 AbacusData
2011 Environics
2012 Forum Research
2012 Postmedia
2012 Angus Reid
2013 Environics
2013 Angus Reid
2017 Ipsos Reid
2018 Angus Reid
2020 DART
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.
]]>
Abortion provides a bandage solution for problems like intimate partner violence, sexual abuse, lack of social supports, poverty, and myriad other issues our leaders should be focused on. If we advocate for life, we can also call on our leaders to address these related issues. If we call for death as a solution in any area, we can have no basis for an expectation that they will improve standards of living across our nation.
Yes, I agree with Prasad’s premise that health care services should be accessible to all, not just those lucky enough to live in the right place. But abortion is not healthcare. Healthcare seeks to heal, treat or prevent disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and when serious complications arise there are always options that care for both mother and child. Delivering a baby alive to save a mother’s life, even if it may not survive, is inherently different than killing that pre-born child before removing it from the womb.
Yes, abortion access is spotty across Canada. But so is actual healthcare. If your appendix bursts in Northern Ontario, or you suffer a stroke in rural Saskatchewan, your medical care access is not going to be the same as it would in a major city centre. Abortion should be the least of our concerns – barring labour, pregnancy is about the safest medical condition one can have if you’re worried about getting to the doctor while the symptoms are still present. Framing abortion as a healthcare issue is an attempt to mask the fact that this is a human rights issue.
Prasad states that “abortion remains one of, if not the most stigmatized essential health service in Canada. While the 1988 Supreme Court ruling should have settled that abortion be treated like any other medical procedure, our lack of progress shows how thorny of an issue it still is.” But the Supreme Court ruling never intended to settle the issue. Rather, even the most liberal of the judges wrote that the pre-born child should be given protection at some stage. It left the law-making to Parliament, as is the Court’s place. It is only Parliament’s inaction and cowardice that has left us the only democracy in the world without restrictions on abortion.
The abortion debate is open, it always has been. The majority of Canadians support limits on abortion, and always have. But the status quo brought about by fearful lawmakers means the womb is a uniquely dangerous place to be in Canada. In the womb, we have human beings not considered persons under the law. It is the only place a human being has no legal protection, but is left completely at the mercy of someone bigger and stronger than themselves. We want leaders who will advocate tirelessly for the vulnerable and voiceless, not throw them under the political bus.
]]>
_____________________________________________________________________________
Story #1: More than we bargained for
Catherine showed Andrew the pregnancy test. There was a glow in her cheeks that showed only a fraction of the joy that was coursing through her. After being together for ten years, countless doctors appointments, various medications, and still being disappointed every month, Catherine and Andrew had finally decided to try IVF. The doctor had explained the process in a friendly but serious manner, going over the success rates.
“We will transfer three embryos into your uterus,” he had explained. “That way we improve the likelihood that at least one will implant itself there.” Catherine nodded, determined. She wanted a child.
The joy Andrew felt was only surpassed by his relief. Relief that it had succeeded. Catherine’s joy was all encompassing. Even that first day she began to speak to her child, despite knowing that the child couldn’t hear yet. This child was going to complete their family, going to complete her life. Nothing could lessen her joy.
The unabated joy, however, was sidelined by shock as Catherine lay on the table staring at the ultrasound screen. As she looked at her child, a mixture of emotions that she couldn’t even begin to describe took hold of heart. It was not just her child that she saw, it was her children. Three children to be precise. Every single one of the embryos had successfully implanted in her uterus. She looked over at Andrew, but he just stared at the screen.
When the doctor began to talk to them the shock had still not worn off. Catherine had wanted a child, but triplets? How could she possibly manage that?
“Each of the fetuses is healthy,” the doctor explained. “Of course, a multi-fetal pregnancy always comes with risks, for both you and the fetuses.” He gestured at Catherine. “We should discuss your options.”
“Options?” asked Andrew.
“Yes. We can, of course, reduce the pregnancy.”
“Reduce the pregnancy?” Andrew asked, uncomprehending.
“Yes, terminate one or two of the fetuses. You can also choose not to do so, in which case we will have to discuss how to monitor the pregnancy. With triplets come an increased risk of serious complications, including preterm labour and premature birth, which can have lasting consequences for the children.”
Andrew suddenly understood what was being implied and he looked at Catherine. “Reducing the pregnancy makes sense to me,” he said. “We aren’t ready for three anyway. It might make sense to keep two – who knows if we will ever get pregnant again, but three is just too much. Don’t you agree?”
Catherine didn’t respond right away. Shock still gripped her. She looked down at her stomach – not that there was anything to see there yet. But there would be soon. Triplets. Three babies. Inside her. And then she would have to give birth to them. And then she would have to care for them for the rest of her life. Fear was slowly replacing the shock.
“If we just reduce the pregnancy,” Andrew was saying, repeating the phrase he had only just learned. “We could see if we can have a boy and a girl. A perfect little family of four.”
Twins I can do, she thought. “Yeah, a boy and a girl would be perfect. What a gift that we can get two children instead of the one we were hoping for. That would be perfect.”
Andrew and Catherine went home to sleep on it, and decided to find out the sex of the babies she carried. Two girls and one boy. They talked, they cried, and then they agreed – a boy and a girl would be perfect. When they returned to the doctor, they were sure.
“Let’s reduce the pregnancy.”
And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.
Story #2: Plenty of girls
Janine was putting together the finishing touches on her middle daughter’s costume. Just that morning, Annaliese had announced that she wanted to go trick-or-treating as an octopus. Despite searching every costume and thrift store in their small town, there was no octopus costume to be found. The look of disappointment on Annaliese’s face grew as they went to store after store, finding a princess dress for Sarah and a Batgirl outfit for Ellie. “What about a turtle?” Janine had asked her 6-year-old. Annaliese hadn’t said anything, but tears filled her eyes. Janine was not one to spoil her three girls, but her hearts strings were pulled. She loved her daughters dearly and wanted them to see the world for all the possibilities it had for women.
“Maybe we can be resourceful.” Janine said. “Let’s see if we can figure out how to make an octopus costume.” Annaliese was enthralled and they spent the rest of the day looking up patterns and finding the material they needed. Janine was proud of her daughter. She had worked hard and carefully all day. All that was left for Janine to do after her daughters were in bed was the finishing touches.
As she looked with satisfaction at the 8-legged costume, she heard the front door open as her husband Spencer arrived home from work. He was up for a promotion that kept him at the office longer these days. The costume was laid aside as another more serious topic took over her mind. Janine was unsure whether the wave of nausea she felt was the morning sickness or the dread of the conversation she intended to have.
Spencer was pulling food out of the fridge when she walked into the kitchen. She sat at the island as he turned to her.
“I found out today that it’s a girl,” Janine said. Spencer didn’t react right away, but Janine knew he must be feeling disappointment. He loved his daughters, she knew, but he had wanted a son. He had wanted someone to play catch with, to take fishing, and to carry on his name. Spencer would never have voiced this, but Janine knew. She knew, because she had wanted that to.
“So, a family of four girls,” he finally said.
“Well,” Janine said. “I was thinking about it. This isn’t a great time to have another child anyway. With you up for the promotion and working so much, maybe it would work better to wait. Three children is already a lot – wouldn’t it be better if we are going to have a fourth that we try again for a boy?”
Spencer pondered this for a moment. “It’s not too late?” he asked.
“I can still have it done at the clinic,” she responded. “And we haven’t told the girls yet so there won’t be any questions from them. The only people who know are our parents and we can just say it was miscarriage.”
Spencer nodded. “Ok. And when the timing’s better, we can try again for a boy.”
And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.
The stories themselves do not always overtly show the misogyny in sex selection – the stories are not all filled with women-hating men coercing their wives into abortions every time they’re pregnant with a girl. Yet, in a country that claims to to value equality of the sexes, evidence has been found that a cultural valuing of males in some communities means girls are overwhelmingly targeted for abortion, especially if the family already has girls. Countries like China and India are dealing with this problem on wide-spread scale, but this is also a Canadian problem.
New assisted reproductive technologies have also made multiple pregnancies more likely, and those who practice these types of medicine look for ways to build a designer family and reduce potential risk. Sadly, “risk” in these case is too often a pre-born child.
If we say that equality of the sexes is important to us as Canadians, we need to back that up with laws that recognize their equal value from the earliest stages. Life is meant to be lived, not controlled. When we focus on designing our families to perfection, we will target those who do not fit our mold, be it based on sex, potential disability, or anything else. If we allow this kind of selection in the womb, that kind of thinking will impact our treatment of born human beings as well. We need a law that bans sex selection abortion, and everything it stands for.
]]>
For the first 102 years of Canada’s existence as a nation, the pre-born child had full legal protection. That all changed a half century ago when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced and passed a bill that legalized abortion. Abortion has been legal in Canada for fifty years, the last thirty of which we have had no fetal protection laws whatsoever.
To mark this 50th anniversary, several producers have worked with a Calgary-based filmmaker in putting together The Missing Project. The Missing Project is a two-part initiative that was launched on Mother’s Day with the release of daily short stories on how abortion has impacted Canadians. The project culminates with the exclusive online release of a full-length documentary this Canada Day weekend.
The Missing Project documentary is a 70-minute film that documents what is missing in our nation because of fifty years of legal abortion. Missing laws. Missing people. Missing information. Missing voices.
Filmmaker and producer Ryan Stockert gathered stories from lawyers, politicians, medical professionals, post-abortive women and men, adopted children, foster families, advocates, and many others in the pro-life movement. Stockert was indifferent to the abortion debate prior to taking on this project, and therefore is well suited to provide a unique perspective on fifty years of history as it relates to women’s rights and fetal rights. “We called the documentary ‘The Missing Project’ because so much of the abortion discussion is now missing from public spaces,” said Stockert. “I always thought abortion is a private discussion and so no one else should be involved. But as I’ve talked to Canadians across the country, it’s clear the stories of Canadians affected by abortion need to be heard.”
The film includes a powerful segment on Bill C-43, an abortion bill introduced by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1990. That bill was the last that any government has tried to pass. Former assistant to then-Member of Parliament Benno Friesen shares how the pro-life movement bears much of the responsibility for the defeat of that bill and of where we are today – the only country in the world without an abortion law.
The release of The Missing Project falls on the eve of the 2019 Federal Election. Prime Minister Trudeau has spent much of the past four years convincing Canadians he is a feminist, and a big part of that is sharing his obsession with abortion, both in Canada and developing countries. Trudeau’s fixation on abortion is sure to carry over into the upcoming election as he attempts to scare Canadians into thinking that Andrew Scheer has a hidden agenda of taking away a women’s so-called “right to choose.”
For his part, the Conservative leader consistently divorces himself from his Catholic faith by promising Canadians that they can have “absolute confidence” he will never reopen the abortion debate. This in turn has given the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, opportunity to garner support from social conservatives. This is manifested in his support for outspoken pro-lifer Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson to run as his first candidate in a byelection earlier this spring. Bernier also made an indirect appeal to this same voting block when he issued a series of tweets calling for sensible abortion regulations.
The abortion debate continues in Canadian politics. But the people whose experiences are documented in The Missing Project show that abortion is much more than a political issue. It is a tragedy that political leaders continue to use abortion, and their commitment to withholding rights from these smallest human beings, to secure votes for themselves, or scare Canadians away from voting for others.
More is missing from abortion than can ever be captured adequately by any film, but the people and stories featured in The Missing Project share the truth that the lives of all human beings matter. Canada is the only democracy in the world that refuses to deal with the legality of abortion. This is a reality we should never accept, and it’s certainly not something to be celebrated.
]]>It is important to consider what this argument says in relation to minors. “Her choice” may sound supportive, but is it really? Should a young teen want to be left to make such a choice alone? If she fully realized the long term impact of this choice, would she choose to carry such a secret, choose to have no one to turn to for support? Is her choice really a choice if she felt there was only one option?
We all want what is in a minor’s best interests. Yet some argue a parent or guardian should not be involved when their daughter has an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it, at a time when a young teen has to make an irreversible decision, we think that anyone but the parents should be deciding what is in her best interests? Who, if not parents or guardians, can genuinely protect the best interests of our children? Doctors? Governments or courts? The teens themselves?
Doctors are well educated in the physical realities of abortion. In this way, they are well-positioned to inform girls about the procedure, as well as other options. They are not, however, in a position to offer counselling and emotional support to anxious girls, nor should we ask them to be. The reality is, for a teen in a vulnerable position, doctors can be intimidating and their opinions overwhelming.
Perhaps the government could objectively determine the benefits of an abortion for a particular individual. Even in the unlikely event that they could, this would take away a long-recognized legal right to parental authority. Parents would be deemed secondary authorities, while the government usurped their responsibility. If this was acceptable when deciding who should have an abortion, why not in deciding who should be allowed to have kids at all? Why not in deciding where your children should be educated? State control over the nation’s children can never be the answer.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what about the teen herself? Many teens are as mature emotionally as they are physically. Should these young women not have a voice? Indeed, they should. However, their voice should not be the only one they hear. Science is clear that the teenage brain is still developing, particularly the pre-frontal cortex, the area of the brain which allows for future planning and decision-making. The adult brain has a deeper capacity for this kind of thought, making adults a better choice than peers when grappling with such an impactful decision as abortion.
In addition, adults can offer resources. These resources are not only financial, but also include resources such as a driver’s license and vehicle to get to doctor appointments, time they are willing to give to babysit a child that could be born, support they are willing to give to their new grandchild, and access to follow-up care post-abortion or post-partum. A parental consent law in Canada would recognize the value of adult support and involvement in a teen’s pregnancy, as well as recognizing parental authority and responsibility.
Parents and guardians, then, are really the only option when it comes to consent for minors to have an abortion, just as parents are the ones who need to consent to a teen getting a tattoo, using a tanning salon, or even going on a field trip from school.
What about parents who are incapable of making good decisions, you ask, or whose relationship with their children is strained, or worse, abusive? This is a legitimate concern when requiring parental consent. But does that mean we should strip all parents of their rights for the sake of those few who may be inept? Certainly not. What it means is that we build safeguards into the law, where teens have the option of bypassing parental consent with good reason. In these cases, be it of abuse, incest, or fear of reprisal, we can allow doctors, government, or courts to step in and assist an adolescent in making a good medical decision. Parental consent should be the standard to which exceptions are made, not the exception itself.
The call for increased education on abortion is led by a minority of medical students, and abortion activists behind them, who believe that access to abortion is a necessity when it comes to medical care. In fact, abortion as a necessity is a social construct, not a fact of medicine.
And it seems it’s not as hard to destroy life as it is to save life – these apparently untrained family doctors perform the majority of therapeutic abortions in Canada. Presumably it would be of utmost concern if it was discovered, for instance, that most brain surgeons had received zero training in brain surgery. As with most discussions on abortion, however, the media gets stuck on easy access and forgets about protections for women, children, and basic human rights.
To be clear, if doctors are performing abortions, we certainly hope they are well-trained in the procedure, as there is no need for TWO people to die as a result of this “choice.” But the fact remains that well-trained abortion providers are well-trained in the art of killing new life.
It makes good sense that, despite high rates of abortion in Canada, medical schools are not focusing on it in their curriculum. In medical school, with its historical focus on healing and saving lives, the majority of students do not want to study, or specialize in, abortion. Hopefully medical schools will continue to focus on top quality training in life-saving procedures, not bow to political pressure to incorporate life-ending techniques into their definition of medical care.
We want to take the time to thank you for connecting with us, helping out at flag displays or events, emailing your elected representatives, following, sharing, and commenting on social media, and otherwise engaging with our content and work!
Here is a visual glimpse into our year, followed by a list of the Top 10 most-read posts on the website…
Blog Year-in-Review: Top 10 most-read posts of 2018
#9: Ad Standards rules against our billboard
#8: Changing tactics in the pro-life movement
#7: Dr. Jordan Peterson talks about abortion laws
#6: Canadian opinion polls regarding abortion
#5: National Geographic posted an image of a rhino fetus. Instagram commenters responded, and so did we
#4: Guest post: a short story evaluating what “choice” can really look like
#2: International Standards Law information and FAQs
#1: Guest post: Open letter from the mother of a premature child
We are looking forward to working with you in 2019! Together we can achieve full human rights for pre-born children in Canada, and we hope this year is full of momentum and positive steps toward that goal.
]]>