A quote often used by the pro-life movement is: “If you’re pronounced dead when your heart stops beating, why aren’t you pronounced alive when it starts?”
Now, pre-born children in Iowa will be.
The passing of this heartbeat law comes about a year after Iowa pro-lifers successfully promoted and passed a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks. This rapid progress shows an ongoing shift in public opinion and a growing desire to protect vulnerable pre-born children.
Recent discussions in Canada have shown there is still a misunderstanding among many pro-lifers about the effectiveness of gestational laws, or laws that limit abortion based on age rather than simply the existence of pregnancy. The events in Iowa show that pro-life groups who support limits on abortion, as we do, do not quit when a law is implemented.
When Iowa implemented a 20-week abortion ban, pro-lifers celebrated. Some lives would be saved that had previously been unprotected! Then they got back to work, because there were still more lives to save.
Supporting legislation to protect some pre-born children does not mean giving up on other pre-born children. Right now in Canada, there are no laws protecting pre-born children. The Canadian Medical Association, which is on the frontlines of this issue daily, has implemented guidelines in recognition of the age of viability, the increased risk to women, and the unwillingness of most doctors to perform abortions on late-term babies. These guidelines, however, are not laws, and Parliament still has a responsibility to protect the interests of pre-born children in law.
As Parliament has a responsibility to make laws recognizing the right to life of pre-born children, so we have a responsibility to keep working. A perfect law in our imperfect world is not going to happen. But introducing laws that keep the discussion open, whether they pass or not, and having discussions that change hearts and lead to changed laws – these are the things we need to focus on. We will continue working with patient persistence to protect pre-born children within the system we have to work with.
“Your hands may be clean, but the babies are dying.” This short, chilling sentence jumped off my iPad as I flew home from Ottawa. The e-book I was reading, entitled Abolition of Reason, contained observations from numerous pro-life apologists on a recent debate between Gregg Cunningham, founder and CEO of Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, and T. Russell Hunter, co-founder of Abolish Human Abortion. The debate from several years ago was entitled, “Pro-Life Incrementalism vs. Abolitionist Immediatism”.
Reading the observations from various pro-life apologists that I look up to, such as Scott Klusendorf and Jonathon Van Maren, I felt a burden of sadness. How could people not see that protecting some now (while working to protect all) is better than saving none due to an “uncompromising” strategy?
For the past six years I have been a full-time advocate for the legal protection of Canadian pre-born children. Without going into specifics, most of the first three years were spent dialoguing with allies in the pro-life movement in an attempt to convince absolutists to think more like incrementalists. These were informative and beneficial conversations. Even when agreement could not be reached it was clear that those on both sides were pouring their energy into ending the injustice of legal abortion.
While these conversations have been kept to a minimum over the past few years there is still some discomfort with advancing partial protections for pre-born children. Recently I participated in the bi-annual God and Government Conference hosted by my employer, ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada. I presented some highlights from the work that we are doing to advance pre-born human rights. Those following the We Need a Law campaign know that we have been involved in promoting legislation addressing gendercide – the injustice of aborting girls simply because they are females – as well as pushing a private member’s bill focused on protecting pre-born victims of crime. After sharing these campaigns with the participants I focussed the remainder of my time discussing why we believe that the next step for the political arm of the pro-life movement ought to be the introduction of a bill that would take Canada into line with other countries in banning abortion after the first trimester. We call it an International Standards Law and, among other things, it would prohibit abortion after thirteen weeks gestation. You can read more about it here.
What struck me in the dialogue that followed my talk was that numerous questions were asked about the gestational limit and how we could advocate for a law that did not protect all pre-born children. To answer these objections, it would be helpful to consider the following three points (taken from this position paper on our website).
- What is not illegal is legal: In our legal system, unless something is illegal it is presumed to be legal. For example, walking your dog without a leash is presumed to be legal unless and until a bylaw is passed requiring a leash. We could not say, before the bylaw was passed, that walking your dog without a leash was not legal; it wasn’t illegal and so it was
- New restrictions do not make abortion legal. It is already legal: Even if there is no abortion law, abortion remains legal. Adding restrictions doesn’t make it legal, nor does it make abortion more legal. More accurately, adding restrictions makes some of what was legal now illegal, thereby adding legal protection for some lives and limiting evil. This is exactly what the Bible calls the state to do – to limit evil. If an International Standards Law that restricted abortion after the first trimester passed, then more humans would be in a protected class, thus limiting or restricting the injustice of abortion. All pro-lifers should be on the same page in supporting any initiative that would move more humans into a protected class.
- In a country where there are no legal restrictions on abortion, any regulation or restriction passed into law is one step toward protecting all pre-born humans: Abortion is legal in Canada for any reason. An International Standards Law does not grant something that was illegal the legitimacy of legal status. Rather it means limiting and regulating by law something that once had absolutely no restrictions.
We need to be concerned not only with good principles, but also good effect. If an International Standards Law is introduced, what is the alternative to supporting it? The alternative is to support the status quo, admittedly not in principle, but certainly in effect. By not advocating for it, our hands may feel clean, but babies will still be dying. This is the crux of the matter – it is imperative that the pro-life movement works with politicians who desire to move the arbitrary line of protection for humans in such a way that the evil of abortion is limited. Gregg Cunningham ended his remarks in the debate with T. Russell Hunter with these poignant words, “We will have to give an account to God for babies we could have saved but didn’t” to which Scott Klusendorf remarked, “Until that day [day of accounting with God] absolutists can pat themselves on the back for opposing imperfect legislation. But their moral smugness is cold comfort to dead children.”
It is entirely understandable that pro-life Canadians do not like to promote a law that doesn’t protect all pre-born children. Neither do I. We would all much prefer to see a complete ban. But progressive improvement is better than deferred protection. A ban on abortion is simply not possible in a pluralistic society where the vast majority of Canadians would not support such a law. The Bible teaches that the role of government is to restrict evil. An International Standards Law that clearly limits abortion is supported by a majority of people and would take us in a direction that limits evil, and away from its expansion.
Please share on social media, and if you’re interested in receiving some hard copies to share with your community, fill in our contact form or email us at info@test.weneedalaw.ca.
Thank you for your continued support in spreading the word about the hard facts of abortion in Canada. These numbers remind us once again how important this work is, and how far we have to go.
]]>
The massive display, organized by WeNeedaLAW.ca , can’t be missed by Members of Parliament, party leaders, and even the press gallery, which is across the street. The flags stretch a span of 400 meters, right in front of the Parliament buildings and the busy Wellington Street. They are accompanied by staff and dozens of volunteers, holding banners and distributing hundreds of information tracts to engage the MPs, staffers, media, and public who are walking by. We also held a press conference, accompanied by a Member of Parliament (stay tuned for media reports).
We have done our part, now we need you to spread this from Ottawa to all corners of Canada! Please forward the pictures and videos to your friends, colleagues, and family, share them from our Facebook page , and Tweet them to your MP, local media, and mainstream media. Do what you can to share them far and wide – in a respectful manner. In the coming weeks we are sending out similar displays, but with 10,000 flags, to BC, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. Contact us about setting one up in your community.
Together we can be a voice for the voiceless.
Gallant’s position seems largely influenced by federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. For months now Trudeau has been talking nonsense about the legal status of abortion in Canada. He is either ignorant of the jurisprudence or is intentionally misrepresenting what the law says. Even as late as this past weekend, the flamboyant Trudeau was on CBC’s Sunday Edition telling listeners that his party is “a party of the Charter” and he will defend women’s rights at all costs. Does he really think all women are pro-abortion? As one female supporter said to me, “If he isn’t assuming that [all women are pro-abortion], then I’m offended as a citizen that he would strip me of democracy. We shouldn’t be putting up with this kind of patronizing attempt at leadership in a post-feminist Canada.”
The question that needs to be asked is “where are all the pro-life leaders?” David Alward is a pro-life leader and it looks like his four-year tenure as premier of New Brunswick is about done. Why isn’t he countering Gallant’s pro-choice platform? As the leader of the Progressive Conservatives surely he must know that nearly three-quarters of his province is opposed to the very thing Gallant is proposing – unrestricted access to publicly funded abortion for any reason at any time throughout a pregnancy. Certainly a large number of those 75% have always voted Liberal. But is Alward going to sit idly by while they all go into the voting booth next week and not do anything to court their vote? While there are still some hard-core abortion advocates who make the news once in a while, they are a minority who cannot morally, scientifically or logically defend the new Liberal position.
Canada has no legal protection for children before birth. The legal restriction in New Brunswick may result in fewer abortions, but it does not protect pre-born children. The last time we had any protections for pre-born children in Canada was before January 28,1988.
Canadians concerned about human rights for all members of the human family are making progress in advocating for laws protecting pre-born children at some stage of pregnancy. This is not an extreme position and politicians should not be afraid to debate it.
It is time for politicians not just to say they are pro-life, but to be pro-life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a martyr under the Nazi regime, once said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Politicians at both federal and provincial levels – be emboldened!
]]>
The United Kingdom has an abortion law based on gestational age which protects children from the twenty-fourth week of development. This is not set in stone and with the medical advances in recent years enabling babies to survive as young as twenty-three weeks there are once again calls to lower the limit as to when abortions remain legal.
There is something refreshing about the latest abortion debate in the UK. Especially when we observe it from this side of the water where we have no restrictions. In Canada the only time abortion seems to be debated at a political level is when our lawmakers are demanding greater access (think Justin Trudeau and New Brunswick Liberal leader Brian Gallant), and this in spite of our Supreme Court instructing government to find a balance between the rights of the woman and those of her child.
Canada’s passion to maintain, even expand, unrestricted access to abortion is rivaled only by North Korea and China. While it is encouraging to see other developed nations debate various protections for children before birth, at the same time it’s a serious indictment on our country where the rights of pre-born children are completely ignored and trampled on.
It’s time we learn something from other advanced civilizations. A civil and informed dialogue would be a good beginning.
]]>