Over the past few years, “safe access zone” laws, also called bubble zone laws, have been passed in Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Quebec, and currently there is private member’s bill regarding this at the Manitoban legislature. Every time a province considers this issue, we’ve let you know and asked you to write to your representative pointing out the concerns with this type of law.
We are concerned about the ways these laws specifically ban pro-life speech. There are three restrictions that are particularly concerning in bubble zones, and I want to clarify those in more detail. I am using the Ontario legislation throughout; while other provinces’ laws might vary slightly in wording, they are similar in substance.
#1 Disapproval of abortion
Section 3(1)(c) While in bubble zone no person shall “perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services.”
It is illegal to disapprove abortion near an abortion clinic. It’s not about how you disapprove, but the act of disapproving itself is illegal. If it were about disapproving loudly, that could be regulated through something like a noise bylaw. If it were about preventing large protests, that could be regulated through restrictions on gathering size, as we are seeing in response to Covid-19. But this law is not concerned with the manner of communication at all. It’s all about the message being communicated. You may approve of abortion, but disapproval is illegal.
This means, for example, that two women could stand side by side outside an abortion clinic with signs – one saying “I regret my abortion” and the other saying “I don’t regret my abortion.” Despite each being a statement of personal experience on the same topic, only the latter is legal. This prohibition isn’t about protecting women’s safety, or even peace of mind, but about preventing women from hearing anything other than full of approval of abortion.
#2 Informing about abortion
Section 3(1)(b) While in a bubble zone no person shall “inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services.”
It is illegal to provide information.
This is the most bizarre element of bubble zones laws. Why do we need to prohibit information? And not just misinformation; this law actually prohibits one person from informing another person about abortion. Why does a law purporting to guarantee women safe access to abortion require the suppression of information?
Women seeking abortions are making complicated decisions based on the information they have. This information could come from what they learned school, what they’ve heard from family members, what their friend said, what the abortionist tells them, what they read in the news, or what they saw online. The fact is we don’t make decisions in a vacuum but based on the whole world around us, and an informed choice requires information.
Every woman deserves to know the truth about abortion. Not just the truth about the actual procedure, but the truth about the humanity and corresponding human rights of her pre-born child. She is making a choice – she deserves to know what the choice entails. Silencing a dissenting voice doesn’t increase a woman’s autonomy or safety, it only decreases the information and potential support available to her.
#3 Advising someone against abortion
While in a bubble zone no person shall “advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services.” Section 3(1)(a).
Notice again the one-way application: it’s illegal to advise or persuade someone not to have an abortion, but there is no prohibition on persuading someone to have an abortion. This is despite the number of women who report feeling pressured into having abortions.
Persuading a woman to have an abortion is a serious issue. Some women are coerced. This is especially a concern for women being trafficked, who are sometimes forced to have an abortion by their pimp. It is also an issue of safety for minors who have been sexually assaulted, where abortion is used to cover up a crime. Some women face pressure from loved ones. Whether it’s a partner threatening to leave or a parent threatening to kick her out of the home, there are many ways a woman can be wrongly persuaded into having an abortion, yet there is no law to criminalize this.
Even without anyone actively pressuring her, a woman can feel like she has nowhere to go. Whether it’s financial, social, or career-wise, some women feel like abortion is their only option. We are allowed to advise her to have an abortion, but we can’t provide other options. We aren’t allowed to talk to her to see if we can address her underlying concerns. We aren’t allowed to let her know that there is support for her if she becomes a parent. A woman in that situation may well be making the hardest decision of her life – why are we not allowed to come alongside her?
“Safe access” laws are not about promoting women’s interests. They are about promoting abortion by preventing a woman from encountering the pro-life message at a time when she may need it the most. Anyone concerned about the lives of pre-born children and the well-being of women, not to mention anyone who values freedom of expression, must oppose bubble zone laws.
In discussing abortion Peterson is clear that it is morally wrong. He calls out politicians for their weak approach to the issue, leaving it in the hands of the courts rather than taking responsibility and action.
It is interesting to see Peterson call for a poll of Canadians to find common ground where abortion regulation can start. Most Canadians, he says, likely do not support abortion at 9 months gestation. It would be simple, he continues, for the government to roll out a variety of legislative propositions and see what people think.
We are already aware from past polls that there is little approval for sex-selective abortion, lack of recognition for pre-born victims of crime, and late-term abortions. This indicates a majority of Canadians do not support the status quo of open access to abortion for any reason.
The majority of democratic nations regulate abortion after the first trimester, and it is this standard which our International Standards Law is modeled after. These regulations include access to counseling and waiting periods, to ensure women are not coerced or pressured, and are giving fully informed consent. Comprehensive polling and legislative propositions from the government would be a bold move, an indication that they are willing to tackle this issue head-on and find common ground to build on.
Free speech is very much at stake in Canada, and the pro-life movement is a popular target. Bubble zones are being implemented around abortion clinics, preventing positive pro-life messages from reaching women seeking abortions. Advertisements are being judged inaccurate and demeaning despite conveying truth. It is more important than ever that we refuse to be silenced. Instead, we must continue to speak up, to seek common ground with our fellow Canadians, and to take steps that will protect the most vulnerable members of the human family.
The whole interview is very interesting, but you can start around 27 minutes to catch his thoughts on abortion.
]]>While we all continue to ponder who those other uterus owners might be, exactly, it is important to note that the local newspaper tied the event to a free speech debate. The flags represented the approximately 100,000 abortions happening every year in Canada – not a small number, and something we all contribute to with our tax dollars, so why the reluctance to talk about it?
The focus on appropriate free speech, and the related pro-censorship attitude of staunch pro-choicers, is a familiar paradox. The pro-abortion view can be spread freely and loudly, while the pro-life view is something to be quickly silenced. This shows the lack of confidence pro-abortion activists have in their position, as they are not even willing to talk about it openly and reasonably. If they really thought about it, how could a common, publicly-funded medical service possibly fall under something questionable to talk about, especially at a university which encourages debate and the open exchange of ideas?
I cannot think of any other common medical procedure that would be considered inappropriate for discussion on a university campus, or anywhere else for that matter. There are heated debates in some forums about, for example, the value or vaccinations for children, yet no one fights to silence those debates or threatens action based on stigma or discrimination. We have major community and national events organized around our hearts, breasts and colons, among other things. Surely our uteruses are not so different.
It is great to see the UFV administration firmly promoting intellectual liberty as well as UFV Life Link standing up so openly for the human rights of children in the womb.
]]>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.
]]>While this has not always manifested in recent times it was great to read this week in review from National Campus Life Network. Conversations are taking place in which young Canadians are learning about the harms of abortion, the deep physical and psychological impact of abortion, and that there is help available.
Many thanks to NCLN for facilitating these discussions through their efforts on university campuses in British Columbia! The culture is changing and your efforts are a huge contribution to a society in need of a shift!
]]>