In 2015, the United States saw an incredible 57 pro-life laws enacted, between 17 states, with almost every single state at least considering increased restrictions on abortion.  The Guttmacher Institute released a study to this effect, pointing out that in only 5 years, 288 abortion restrictions have been introduced, only a few short of those enacted in the previous 15 years combined.

This is reason for hope, also here in Canada. The government in the United States is recognizing the changing tide, as the pro-abortion movement grows older and sticks to the same tired, self-centered arguments, while the pro-life movement has both faith and ever-increasing science on their side. Most of the laws made in the U.S. are compatible with restrictions most Canadians also agree with, and it is up to our government to take on it’s long-shirked responsibility to make laws in this field. 

The pro-abortion movement is getting nervous, as evidenced in articles reminding us there is a war on women afoot. I’m a woman, and I can’t say I feel particularly under attack for not being allowed to kill my children, but clearly I don’t speak for us all.

Read our full article about last year’s successes in the U.S., and what this means for Canada and Canadians, here.

For example, pro-lifers have long argued ‘a woman’s right to choose’ is a term that should be rejected as the rallying call of the pro-abortion movement. It is after all an incomplete statement. The verb “to choose” is a transitive verb, meaning it requires a direct object. We wouldn’t let anyone get away with saying ‘woman’s right to take’ and neither should we allow for the unchallenged use of ‘woman’s right to choose’.

Recently we have begun to observe that abortion supporters have resorted to calling pro-lifers ‘anti-choice’. This too is an inaccurate choice of words. The author of this article says the label isn’t only ambiguous, it’s dishonest. He says,

The reason why I oppose the choice of human fetal abortion is not because I oppose choices; it is because they oppose a specific choice – human abortion. If one opposes the choice of a man to hit his wife, is that person “anti-choice”? Of course not. The essence of opposing the choice of a man to hit his wife stems from an opposition to violence, not an opposition to choices. Likewise, the essence of opposition to human abortion is not an opposition to choices, but an opposition to killing human life.

Good point and something to think about the next time you are called ‘anti-choice’.