But abortion does need to be talked about.

Since 2012, We Need a Law has existed with a mission to build support for legislation to protect pre-born children in Canada. Canada is the only country in the world without abortion legislation. The increased attention on pre-born children has raised awareness that our lack of a legal framework protecting pre-born children is largely the result of inaction by our political leaders.

Abortion should absolutely be a key topic of debate in every election cycle – and in the intervening four years. But the focus should be on measures that will be implemented by each party to protect these smallest members of the human family. Most Canadians agree that it is discriminatory to abort a healthy girl because you wanted a boy. Most Canadians are also disgusted at the idea that a child can be killed even when he is developed enough to survive outside of the womb.

But unfortunately, these were not the topics our leaders discussed. Instead, they viewed pre-born children as a political tool, either to scare people away from voting for one party or to reach out to an assumed support group with vague assurances. All parties seem to view pre-born children as merely part of a political strategy, not as human beings being denied their most basic human right.

What can we do differently?

As we analyze the results of this election, we must be wary of falling into the same trap. We need to avoid the polarizing drama or the partisan games when they cause the focus to move away from the pre-born child and the need to have legal protection for the child. We Need a Law is non-partisan. One of the reasons for this is because we understand abortion to be a human rights issue, not a partisan issue. We focus on getting Canadians to start the conversation with their representative regardless of the party. We want you to develop a relationship and influence your leaders to start honestly seeing the human victim of abortion – the pre-born child.

This isn’t merely a numbers game of getting the most MPs from a particular party. There is a culture that needs to change. A culture in Ottawa in the way they discuss this issue, and a culture across Canada. One change that needs to happen is a shift to talking about actual legislation rather than focusing on whether someone personally holds a correct opinion. Pro-abortion Parliamentarians have had it easy, never having had to counter actual abortion legislation; abortion legislation like what the rest of the world has managed to implement, abortion legislation that most Canadians would support.

For too long, we’ve allowed the political conversation to be about personal opinions and vague ideas. This needs to change. We need to see real abortion legislation on the table, and MPs need to have a real conversation about what it would look like here in Canada.

Canadians are already having very real, serious, nuanced conversations about pre-born human rights. Our politicians do us and pre-born children an inexcusable disservice by refusing to engage in the debate in the same way. It’s time for our politicians to engage in a serious conversation about legislation that would, at the very least, bring our country into line with other Western democracies. We need a framework around late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, and pre-born victims of crime. We need to recognize the humanity of our own children before they exit the womb.

In the discussion on abortion, Trudeau went with his standard “reproductive rights are women’s rights” and “women’s rights are human rights” taglines. This line of reasoning, unfortunately, sets up an impossible situation. Women’s rights are human rights, absolutely! The right to life, liberty, security of the person – all good, important things. But that right to life means that all the women’s rights in the world cannot include abortion. Abortion takes a life. One right to life does not trump another, and reproductive rights have to mean something other than abortion.

There remains strong support for strict restrictions on abortion in Ireland, an example we should be following, not criticizing. We can pray that the results of the referendum will cement the culture of life Ireland has maintained for so long, and that the value of life will still be recognized from its earliest stages. Until then, though, the country has become a target for abortion activists, and our Prime Minister has added Canada’s voice to the side of death.

For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.

Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.

The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.

I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.

DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.

They did, however, leave one important stone unturned: sex-selective abortion. Polls indicate that about 92% of Canadians are opposed to sex-selective abortion. Yet we know it happens in Canada, and it is clearly gender-based violence to decide whether or not someone should live based on your valuation of their sex. It was great to see MP Rachael Harder question Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef on this omission.

Monsef was disappointingly quick to sidestep the issue and focus on the party line of “choice” as crucial for women. Sex-selection, though, is not a choice most Canadians agree with. Sure, we may all secretly hope one way or another for a certain sex to add to our family. Choosing to end the life of a child that doesn’t fit that hope, however, is an entirely different thing. All life is precious, and needing to design our family to the point of being willing to kill our offspring to achieve the perfect family photo is a symptom of some deeper control issues.

Sex-selective abortion is not only a form of gender-based violence, it’s also an easy one to do something about. Not many government changes can be completely effective in two little steps: end late-term abortions and do not reveal the sex of pre-born babies until abortion is off the table. Want to paint the room pink or stock up on blue crib sheets? You still can, and your baby will get to see them.

When discussing gender-based violence, we should start at the very beginning. We have incredible ultrasound technology that lets us know all kinds of things about the little people growing in their mother’s wombs. One thing we know is their sex. Let’s not use it against them.

On April 7, less than six months later, 27-year-old Arianna Goberdhan, 9 months pregnant, was murdered. From reports, it seems the baby did not survive the beating she took prior to her death. Her husband has been arrested and charged, but not in connection with the death of Goberdhan’s baby.

Where is justice?

Three months ago, I had my son three weeks early. Had Arianna also been so fortunate, her baby would have survived. Had her husband then attacked that baby along with his wife, he would feel the full weight of the law in regards to two murders. This discrepancy in charges based solely on timing is heart wrenching. Anyone who has ever seen a woman at nine months pregnant is well aware that the baby could literally come at any time. Now, Ms. Goberdhan’s baby will never be recognized as the person he or she was, because we could not protect the mother who carried this child for so long.

Violence against women is a serious issue, our MPs were right about that. But to call for a “national strategy” or “committee investigation” while ignoring a tangible bill right in front of you is simply ridiculous. Bill C-225 might not have prevented Ms. Goberdhan’s death, this is true. What it would have accomplished, though, is justice that recognised her choice to spend almost a year of her life nurturing new life. Allowing her baby to be acknowledged publicly as a victim would honour her family’s grief, and honour the choice she made to carry her child.

Bill C-225 was introduced largely because Molly, a pre-born baby who died when her mother was murdered, had a father left behind who cared deeply. Her father, Jeff Durham, wanted her recognized as a victim along with her mother because that recognition would be a validation of the choice Cassandra Kaake made to be a mother. In the case of Ms. Goberdhan, who will fight for her baby? Who will miss that awaited child silently, knowing justice can never be fully served?

We need to re-calibrate society

Fear of the abortion debate, and the hardline stance of the Liberal government on this issue, have contributed to a state of immense imbalance when it comes to a woman’s choice. When will we stop devaluing mothers out of fear of offending those who have chosen not to be mothers? When will we celebrate mothers who choose life as much as we celebrate reproductive choice?

If we want to tackle violence against women, we need to tackle tolerance with truth. The truth is, many women want to be mothers. When the unthinkable happens, as in the tragic case of Arianna Goberdhan, we honor her choice by stating the obvious that she can no longer state for herself: her pre-born baby is a victim of violence as much as she is, and the offender must be charged and sentenced accordingly.

Take Action

Let your Member of Parliament know that Canada’s law needs to change. We need a pre-born victims of crime law to honour the women who die carrying their child. Take 10 minutes to send this letter or write your own and make your voice heard.

This article was also published on LifeSiteNews.

Freedom of speech on campus

Freedom of speech seems to be uniquely threatened on university campuses. Universities may claim to be places for open dialogue, but reality shows this is far from true. The focus instead seems to be on not hurting anyone’s feelings or making anyone uncomfortable. “Trigger warnings” and “safe zones” are new buzzwords that conveniently limit free speech on the realities of abortion, among other things. We recently shared a story where a pro-life display at Wilfrid Laurier University was attacked by opponents. This was a peaceful, calm display without any graphic imagery. The reactions to it were anything but peaceful, or even rational.

On April 18, CBC news took on the issue of freedom of speech on campus. Then, Conservative leadership candidate Andrew Scheer announced that, if elected leader, he would insist on freedom of speech at universities if they want to be able to apply for government funding. It seems students, faculty, and the public have grown tired of universities telling them what they’re allowed to talk about.

Why should we allow free speech on campus?

Lawyer John Carpay, who is representing several students fighting for their right to free speech, says it well in this quote to CBC:

“University should provide a safe space from assault, from physical harm, but not a safe space from feeling upset about ideas you disagree with,” he said. “If you’re calling for any person or group of people to be murdered or to have their houses burned down or to be robbed or assaulted, that’s already illegal criminal speech. So there’s already a healthy boundary there.”

The Criminal Code covers speech that shouldn’t be spoken. The constitution protects the freedom of all other speech, but we should never take that freedom for granted. These attacks on freedom of speech go beyond the pro-life cause, but rarely exclude it. Continue to speak up boldly and truthfully, since exercising our freedom of speech is the best way to keep it strong.

We should always take notice, and even celebrate, a declining number of pre-born children losing their lives to abortion. But in addition to this being a positive news story we should also acknowledge that it really is both contraception and laws that contribute to a declining abortion rate.

In the past number of years there have been plenty of laws passed, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Parental Consent and Notification Laws, Mandatory Ultrasound Laws, Mandatory Waiting and Counselling Period Laws, and the list goes on. In each instance, another advance is made against the pro-abortion mainstream by protecting pre-born children and making it more difficult for them to be aborted.

The laws that have been passed in the U.S. not only protect lives, they also have a profound pedagogical effect by sending a message to the population that there is something immoral about abortion. It goes without saying that these laws have an incredible cultural impact. The effect on culture is that people are becoming far more careful in how, when, and for what reason(s) they engage in sexual activity. Whether within or outside of the marriage relationship men and women will undoubtedly exercise greater responsibility to ensure that, when taking part in the act of sex they are giving thought to whether or not said activity will result in procreation. The reasons for this are obvious – if their actions result in pregnancy it will be difficult, if not impossible, to simply destroy the evidence by way of abortion.  It is easy to conclude that the reason the rate of abortion is declining is because it’s a lot more challenging to actually get one!

What does this mean for us in Canada? And what encouragement can we take from a declining abortion rate in the country south of us?

It should convince us that by working incrementally we can make a difference. Let’s not kid ourselves; these are real lives saved! Advancing pre-born human rights is a slow process that requires transformational change – change that can only happen when we move forward one step at a time. Our pro-life counterparts in the U.S. have been incredibly successful at changing the culture and saving lives.

Abortion laws both save lives and produce behavioural change among the population. As the Guttmacher study proves, it is for these reasons we need to continue pursuing legislative initiatives in Canada that protect pre-born children.

The de facto position of Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper is, in principle, no different. When questioned directly by Trudeau last Friday, Harper said the same as he has been saying for years, “My position for 10 years has been I don’t intend to re-open this debate.”

As yet, all three leaders have a realistic shot at making 24 Sussex their home after the October 19 election. And all three continue to treat pre-born children as a political liability.

Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau are without excuse. If elected, it is their duty to enact laws for the benefit of all Canadians. Their complete disregard for the human rights of any children in the womb effectually means that they are complicit in the deaths of 100,000 members of the human family every year.

In effect Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau all support sex-selective abortion. They care less about the fact that girls are targeted for abortion much more frequently than boys. Their refusal to act is a sign that they endorse this misogynistic practice in Canada.

All three leaders also support late-term abortion. They show no regard for the reality that every year thousands of babies lose their lives by being aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy, after the stage when children of the same age are born, survive outside of the womb, and live productive lives as Canadian citizens.

Canada is the envy of millions of people around the world precisely because of our high standard of human rights and equal rights for everyone. Yet, when it comes to the treatment of pre-born children, we are in the company of only North Korea and China – two countries with less than stellar human rights records.

This complete absence of any legal protection for pre-born humans is both the fault of our judicial and legislative branches of government. The Supreme Court of Canada is partially to blame as it struck down all existing abortion regulations in the infamous R. v. Morgentaler decision in 1988. To their credit though, they did toss the ball back to Parliament, instructing the legislative body to enact provisions that would “protect fetal rights at some point.”

Canada’s lack of protections for children in the womb at any stage of pregnancy puts us in an extreme position by any international standard. It’s time our political leaders recognized that their cowardice towards the smallest members of the human family is having real life consequences.

Legislation that would ban sex-selective and late-term abortion would bring us a little closer in line with every civilized country in the world. It would also allow our courts to make rulings that are legitimately reflective of what we know about the science of embryology, as well as a proper understanding of human rights.

It’s unknown who will form government after October 19th. What we do know is that Canada’s next Prime Minister intends to continue supporting, and even celebrating, the legal void which allows for the horrific practices of sex-selective abortion and late-term abortion to continue.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an anti-Nazi dissident who was sent to jail and eventually killed for his work in fighting the Holocaust 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.”

The injustices of slavery and the Holocaust continued unchecked until people like Abraham Lincoln, William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer fought back. So also the injustice of sex-selective and late-term abortion will continue until Canadians rise up and demand action from our political leaders. We are not accountable for their inaction, but God help us if we decide to join them in continuing to trample the human rights of our pre-born neighbours.

With over twenty events from Halifax to Vancouver, lifeTOUR seeks to ensure that Canada’s leaders face the injustice committed against 100,000 Canadians every single year.

Michelle Lemire, a pro-choice spokesperson for the Molly Matters campaign spoke at a press conference with LifeTOUR this morning in Ottawa. Her best friend, Cassandra Kaake, was seven months pregnant with her daughter Molly when she was brutally murdered in Windsor Ontario, last December.

“On December 11th, 2014 my life changed forever. I received a phone call informing me that my best friend of 26 years, Cassie Kaake, had died. I was paralyzed with emotion,” said Ms. Lemire.

“Windsor and the surrounding area have been deeply affected by this tragedy. A permanent scar has been left on her place of work, community and her family and friends,” continued Lemire.

This is not the first time there have been calls for a pre-born victims of crime law. In 2007 Edmonton MP Ken Epp introduced Bill C-484. The bill was called the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Mr. Epp’s bill passed Second Reading in Parliament but it failed to become law because an election was called in the fall of 2008.

Lemire concluded her remarks by saying, “Allow me to be very clear. Abortion is legal in Canada throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason. A pre-born victim’s law does nothing to change this. A pre-born victim’s bill modeled after Bill C-484 would not criminalize abortion and could not be interpreted as Parliament restricting a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.”

Mike Schouten of WeNeedaLAW.ca also spoke at the press conference. “Canada desperately needs a late-term abortion law which would prohibit abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy, and after the point in which the pre-born child can survive outside of the womb,” Schouten said.

The issue of sex-selective abortion is also being raised at each lifeTOUR presentation.

“The reality that Canada is one of only a handful of countries that allows such violent discrimination against pre-born females – simply because they are girls – is deplorable,” Schouten said. “A new government needs to take immediate steps to address this serious injustice.”