NDP MLA Marie Renaud had put forward pro-abortion Motion 506, urging the government to review access to abortion services in Alberta, and take action to “remove barriers” to abortion across the province.
We asked you last week to engage with your MLA on this issue. Hundreds of you did so, and we are again humbled by the efforts of our supporters. These calls and emails do not go unnoticed by the Legislature, on either side of the debate. When introducing her motion, Ms. Renaud included this: “I’m sure that each of your offices has been bombarded by targeted e-mail campaigns from organized groups right across the country because that’s what they do.”
She’s not wrong. Targeted email campaigns are a great way to remind legislators that the people are watching, and have a vested interest in the decisions made at the government level. These calls to contact your MLA show them just how much people care; that they are willing to take time and effort to engage when they are made aware of the issue.
Ms. Renaud said she was bringing forward Motion 506 because of her belief in human rights and the “right of a woman to control her body and her future …It doesn’t matter why women make those choices, and women should never be forced to share those stories, those very personal stories about why they did. Whether it was about their health, whether it was about economics, whether it was about their age, it really doesn’t matter.” She ignores the stories shared by post-abortive women who regret their abortions and also wrongly cites abortion as a Charter right under the 1988 Morgentaler case, though such a right was never granted in that case.
One MLA who spoke against the Motion was Ms. Glasgo, who stood boldly for her pro-life beliefs. Glasgo said, “It is my personal conviction that all human life is sacred and should be protected. I am unapologetically and unreservedly pro life and my constituents were aware of this when they sent me to this place.”
Glasgo also praised pro-life Albertans for their commitment to helping the pre-born and women, especially through crisis pregnancy centres. In a time when these centres are often slandered, it is encouraging to hear an elected representative give them the credit they deserve. She said,
“These Albertans are compassionate. They give generously to agencies for mothers experiencing a crisis pregnancy. They support families. They objectively and without judgment counsel young women, praying for them and giving them shelter and other necessities. They set up programs and centres that help young mothers get back on their feet no matter their choice. They work to make life better for women and families in times of great need.”
She was not alone in opposing the motion. Motion 506 was soundly defeated, with a vote of 43-11. The discussion focused, as it should, on actual health care concerns for women and the need to end the use of abortion as a political tool.
We are thankful to see this motion die here, with the Albertan government taking a clear stance against increasing abortion access in the province. Let this be an encouragement also to those who communicated with their MLA that your voice was heard and well-represented. Pre-born children need our voices, and our leaders’ voices, and we can bring those together to even greater effect.
If your MLA voted against this motion, send a follow-up note thanking them for their vote. Here is the list of MLAs who voted against Motion 506:
The trouble is, neither the constitution, the charter, nor the Supreme Court [R. v. Morgentaler 1988] has ever declared abortion to be a right at all, let alone an unlimited right from conception to birth, nor has any parliament declared it to be a right.
He then goes on to (quite admirably) dispel some arguments he has faced from constituents.
In response to my opposition to Motion 510, someone said “why not make dental surgery illegal too?” The comparison is ridiculous – no one is calling for legal limits on dental surgery, because no one believes that teeth are people.
Exactly. Thanks Mr. Hillyer!
]]>
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and the NDP Status of Women critic Niki Ashton have, perhaps unintentionally, drawn much needed attention to the plight of unprotected fetuses in Canada in recent weeks. While it is unexpected to have two left-of-centre parties raise the always-sensitive topic of abortion, it is a conversation that needs to be had. And since Canada is only one of three countries in the world with no abortion laws whatsoever, our Parliament is one place in which this conversation really must be taking place.
While the debate continues in Ottawa and as Canadians contemplate federal abortion laws, there is also much needed dialogue at the provincial level. There are many provincial regulations that would address the void surrounding Canadian abortion law. The Constitution Act (1867) lays out the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. Section 92 (16) confers on Provincial Legislatures the power to make laws in relation to “all matters of merely local or private nature in the province.” Similarly, paragraph 7 of that same section authorizes provinces to make laws in relation to “the establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, charities, etc.” This specifically authorizes the provinces to establish and regulate hospitals, and to regulate hospital-based health care services.
There is a lot of room for provincial legislatures to step up. For example, there are no laws stipulating that women seeking an abortion need to be properly informed on the physical and psychological risks accompanying abortion. Similarly, no health jurisdiction in our country has parental consent for abortion legislation.
A few weeks ago my sixteen-year-old daughter was asked to come in for a night shift at the retail outlet she works at. In order for her to do that, my wife and I had to give our written consent. We didn’t have a problem with this – it provided a measure of respect for and deference to our parental responsibilities. In contrast, if our daughter found herself in an unplanned pregnancy, she could quite easily be pressured to think abortion was the only solution for her and to abort her pre-born child without our knowledge.
When I mentioned this to a friend in Saskatchewan she told me that her fifteen-year-old daughter, who has Type 1 Diabetes, wanted to get a tattoo. The medic alert bracelet she must wear was aggravating her allergies, and a permanent tattoo would reliably convey the same medical information. My friend explained that nearly every tattoo shop she went to refused to tattoo her daughter, even with parental permission, because in their words, “It’s a permanent decision that we want to make sure your daughter won’t regret.”
Note the stark contrast in how we treat our daughters when it comes to tattooing and employment standards compared to the current legal vacuum regarding abortion – a decision for which there is also permanent ramifications.
Young girls need the protection of caring parents or guardians. Without the involvement of parents it is easier for coercive boyfriends and child predators to use abortion to cover up criminal behaviour. A parental consent for abortion act would enshrine into law the rights and responsibilities of parents and would give much needed protection to vulnerable minors.
]]>But this hasn’t been working so great for them and this morning we received news of another free speech victory. From a press release issued by Calgary based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms we read:
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled it was “unreasonable” for the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary to refuse to hear and fully consider the appeal of seven students found guilty of non-academic misconduct for having set up a pro-life display on campus.
The release goes on to say, “The Court noted that they University’s decision failed to address many o f the argument that the students had put forward, such as their right to free expression under the Charter, their free expression rights under contract, and administrative law arguments.”
There is more to come as this Board of Governors of U of C will now hear the students’ appeal, but for now John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is “happy with this outcome.”
The background to this case can be found here.
]]>
Click here for more information
]]>The Conservative Party of Canada will be discussing sex-selection discrimination and they need to know we support them!
For more details contact: Rosey Rosenke at director@albertaprolife.com or Mike Schouten at mike@test.weneedalaw.ca
{youtube}5Vwt7j3Vvdc&feature=em-upload_owner{/youtube}
]]>
This week we are teaming up with the Wilberforce Project in Alberta to present a vision for further cooperation between our organizations towards protecting pre-born human rights in Alberta. We will be speaking at four highschools and three pro-life events. See below for times and details of the evening presentations.
Monday, September 16
Bethel Christian Reformed Church – 5704 51 Ave, Lacombe AB
7:30pm
Tuesday, September 17
St. Anthony’s Catholic Church – 4708 50th Ave, Drayton Valley AB
7:00pm
Wednesday, September 18
Covenant Christian Reformed Church – 52nd Ave, Rocky Mountain House AB
7:30pm
]]>