January 28th marks the 30th anniversary of the Morgentaler ruling, which eliminated abortion restrictions from our Criminal Code. The Prime Minister at the time, Brian Mulroney, made two attempts at passing legislation that protected fetal interests and, for a variety of reasons (among them, all-or-nothing pro-lifers), both failed to pass. Since then, governments of all stripes have avoided discussing abortion legislation. Justin Trudeau is doing his best to change that.
Whether intentional or not, the changes the Liberals have made to the Canada Summer Jobs program have evoked a national conversation about abortion that we haven’t seen in decades. A common theme in all the backlash – from a surprising variety of places – against Trudeau and the Liberals is that Canadians do not support opinion-policing by the government, whether or not they agree with the opinion being policed.
The criticism has especially focused on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s dogged determination to reference “reproductive rights” as an actual Charter right. Doing so indicates either a serious lack of knowledge regarding the contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or a serious lack of concern for what it contains.
Is abortion a “right”?
The rights laid out in the Charter are those of life, liberty, and security of the person. No matter how many times the Liberals attach “and access to abortion”, it does not make it true. On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that removed all abortion restrictions from the law. They deemed Canada’s existing abortion regulations as unconstitutional in that it unnecessarily impeded and delayed access to abortion, so infringing on a woman’s right to liberty and security of the person. What this ruling did NOT do, however, was declare a constitutional “right” to abortion. In fact, it turned responsibility over to Parliament to make a new law.
As stated so succinctly by the National Post: “Fact check: What permits unrestricted abortion in Canada is not a law, but the absence of one. There is an important difference. The Supreme Court struck down what it ruled were overly restrictive laws in 1988, and gave Parliament a year to come up with replacements. Parliament tried, failed, and gave up, apparently forever.”
We saw this situation recently with the debate around medically assisted dying, or euthanasia. The laws were struck down and Parliament was given a set amount of time to create new ones, or a free-for-all would ensue. This time they buckled down and did their duty before euthanasia, like abortion, was left in the hands of the medical community to decide.
Some argue that the guidelines implemented by the medical community do, in fact, suffice with regards to abortion. However, just as there are many excellent reasons not to let doctors decide when their patients should die, so there are many reasons not to let abortion doctors decide when abortion is allowable. What other industry allows the stakeholders to make the decisions regarding the legality of their dealings?
Canada needs an abortion law.
The majority of Canadians are unaware that abortion is legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, and when informed of the status quo show support for bans on things such as sex-selective abortion or third-trimester abortion, with 77% saying they think abortion should be illegal in the last 3 months. The Canadian Medical Association sets viability outside the womb at 20 weeks gestation, and prenatal surgeries are growing, showing clearly the humanity of children in the same stages of development as some of those being aborted.
Many countries, such as Germany and Spain, have laws protecting pre-born human rights after the first trimester. It is time Canada got in line by passing an International Standards Abortion law that regulates abortion after the first trimester.
Pregnancy, planned or unplanned, can certainly be inconvenient, disruptive and fraught with stress. Undoubtedly a discussion on abortion at the national political level will also be inconvenient and disruptive, and fraught with stress. That doesn’t take away from the reality that pregnancy involves a real human child who should have his or her human rights protected. Canadians are willing to have hard conversations.
Thirty years ago the Supreme Court left it up to Parliament to decide how abortion ought to be regulated. Canadians can be encouraged to know that the national conversation launched by the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney is being continued today by Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals. It’s time to see that conversation move into the House of Commons again with the introduction of a bill that offers a reasonable response to the Morgentaler decision.
]]>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.
]]>We know that Justin Trudeau fully supports the legal killing of pre-born children. We also know that over 100,000 abortions occur every year in Canada – and they are all paid for with your tax dollars.
In response to the Trump administrations re-enacting of the Mexico City Policy, an order that ensures U.S. foreign aid will not be used to subsidize abortion overseas, Trudeau has begun to actively pursue new opportunities to fund abortion in underdeveloped countries.
And he wants to use more of your tax dollars to achieve his goal!
It’s already tragic enough that we pay for this grievous injustice taking place in Canada. Now the federal government seems intent on forcing us to pay for the killing of even more pre-born children.
The House of Commons has resumed sitting today. Your MP is back in Ottawa and they need to hear the message loud and clear that we do not want any more of our tax dollars going to fund the killing of pre-born children.
There are three ways we are asking you to connect with your MP:
- Call him or her. Your representative gets very few phone calls. A phone call makes them stop and take notice in a way email cannot.
- To find your MPs phone number simply type your postal code in the “Contact your Representative” bar at the top of this page.
- Call them at their ‘Hill Office’ number.
- Remember to be respectful and maintain a calm tone.
- In addition to using the talking points below, be sure you get an answer to this question: “Does MP [name] support the use of Canadian tax payer dollars to fund overseas abortions?”
- Follow this call with an email the next day
- You can use the Simple Mail letter provided here. Please edit the intro with a reference to the phone call you already made. Something like, “Thanks for taking the time to listen to me yesterday. I am sending this to ensure you have received my concern…”
- We also encourage you to use the same “Contact your Representative” tool at the top of this page to locate your MP and send your own email to him or her.
- As with the phone call, make sure you get an answer to the question: “Do you support the use of Canadian tax payer dollars to fund overseas abortions?”
- Call the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Development with the same message. The numbers for each office are above. Be sure to leave a message if you receive an answering machine.
Here are three simple talking points:
- You recently heard that the Canadian government was looking to expand on their funding of abortion overseas;
- You do not support your tax dollars going to pay for abortion at home or overseas;
- Pregnant women in developing countries are in desperate need of medicine, clean water, and maternal health – not abortion!
Will you take a stand with us and engage with these three calls to action?
Together we can make a difference!
]]>This week President Trump re-enacted the Mexico City Policy, an order that ensures U.S. foreign aid will not subsidize abortion overseas. This is leadership on behalf of the voiceless. It is also the fruit of many years of hard work by American pro-lifers.
So how is Canada responding? Shockingly, our federal government is talking with the Netherlands and other nations to step up to the plate and raise $600 million to bail out programs run by International Planned Parenthood Federation!
Understand this correctly – Canada’s government is now actively exploring opportunities overseas to contribute even more of your tax dollars towards the killing of pre-born children.
Readers may recall that a signature component of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Muskoka Initiative – a funding agreement for maternal, newborn, and child health, was that the money Canada contributed could not be used to facilitate abortions in third-world countries. Simply put, abortion is not health care. It is the taking of life.
Upon taking office in 2015 the Trudeau government immediately said that they would reverse this policy. The mandate letter sent to International Development Minister, Marie-Claude Bibeau asked her to ensure that that aid for maternal, newborn and child health “is driven by evidence and outcomes, not ideology, including by closing existing gaps in reproductive rights and health care for women.”
The message from Prime Minister Trudeau is clear: 100,000 abortions in Canada is not enough.
We know Trudeau is unabashedly pro-abortion. But where is the Opposition on this? Where are organizations that exist to stand up for Canadian taxpayers? Where are those who work so hard to protect genuine human rights? What does your MP think about this? Will anyone speak up?
We are not going to be silent while our government is using their position of authority and our finances to eradicate life at home and abroad. Will you join us in standing up? Next week we will be rolling out a campaign to speak up – and we will be looking to you to join us in this. Be ready for action.
]]>
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is hoping to improve relationships with China because, quite frankly, we want to do business with them. Unfortunately, China isn’t known for its glowing human rights record, and many Canadians consider this a problem. The fact that we consider this a problem is, I think, a beautiful reflection on a nation that is unwilling to compromise its values and priorities just to make a few bucks and end a recession here or there.
In an attempt to address these concerns without alienating the Chinese superpower, Trudeau brought up their human rights track record with a healthy helping of humility. He admitted, according to the CBC, that Canada cannot claim perfection on its own human rights track record. The scathing report on our missing and murdered Indigenous women was mentioned, a fair admission. What Trudeau failed to mention, however, to a nation whose one-child policy caused untold sorrow and death, was Canada’s similar shame in its despicable treatment of pre-born children.
Our government may not be forcibly aborting children, or openly threatening families with the loss of a job, a home, or future prospects if they choose to keep their child, but are our policies really any better? Unrestricted abortion is a subtle way for our government to give women the very same choice between socially stigmatized struggle and socially celebrated success.
Women are encouraged to have abortions when the timing is bad, or if their career could be impacted. They are told that they cannot have both a baby and a successful career, while simultaneously being told that career stability is more important, more valuable, and will get them more respect than choosing motherhood. Abortion is seen as a solution when your partner is abusive and you don’t want him to have a reason to make you stay in touch with him, and it is seen as a way out when a night of fun with a man you’ve only just met has unexpected consequences. Abortion is somehow seen as a solution to the violent crimes of rape and incest, and also as a way to eliminate disability and so to subtly discriminate against the born disabled among us. Teen pregnancy continues to be closely linked to single parenthood, and 21% of single women in Canada raise their children in poverty.
All of these examples show abortion being used as a bandage for much more significant issues, and a cover-up for damaging social norms and expectations. Rather than liberate a woman, abortion kills her child and tells her she is better off. In China, abortion kills her child and tells her the whole nation is better off.
Abortion on demand is not solving problems any more than abortion by demand. Prime Minister Trudeau’s humility when talking to China about human rights is laudable. But when juxtaposed with his continued support of untold injustice here in Canada, it’s clear it is also absolutely necessary, as he really has no right to criticize anyone else on their treatment of human beings.
]]>
So Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marched in Toronto’s pride parade last month. It was all very exciting and social-media worthy, obviously, as who doesn’t love a flamboyant family man enjoying a good colorful parade with way more skin on display than would allow him to actually bring said family along?
While I’m sure this politically-safe publicity stunt won over a few fans, I think it’s also safe to say that basically every other minority group should assume that this isn’t going to be standard behaviour. The LGBTQ movement continues to hold some kind of political spell where they are one of the most recognized, lauded minority groups in Canada (although brief mention was given to another worthwhile minority group who seem to be being pushed too quickly out of view, the Syrian refugees, as one was given the honor of marching beside Trudeau for the duration of the parade.)
We seem to have a Prime Minister who is always up for being front and center at a party (recent Calgary Stampede photos back this up), but quick to quietly fade into the background when an issue surrounded by real debate calls his name. Basically any minority group could jump in here with agreement and examples, and one issue where this is the case is that of abortion and the right to life.
Trudeau openly supports “choice” – which, ironically, means one choice, the choice to end the life of children in the womb. Trudeau joins thousands to march in the Pride Parade, but turns a blind eye to the equal thousands who marched in the March for Life in May. Despite how efficiently euthanasia legislation was passed, with consideration and discussion and solidifying of legal limitations, we continue in our on-going allowance of absolutely unlimited abortion.
To allow abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, with no laws protecting our choice as women to carry a baby, no law protecting perfectly healthy girls from being dismembered because their father wanted a boy, and no law to protect a baby with Down’s Syndrome from being eliminated as not perfect enough, it is clear our lawmakers are not having a discussion that very much needs to be had.
Trudeau is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, “We have to speak up any time there is intolerance or discrimination.” We couldn’t agree more, and we’re speaking up. If the annual death of approximately 100,000 children who have never been given a chance at life isn’t discrimination, I don’t know what is. If the elimination of people with disabilities is not discrimination, I don’t know what is.
And we’re not going to stop speaking up. We look forward to the day when a Canadian Prime Minister will make headlines for marching in the National March for Life, and his (or her!) decision will be supported and celebrated with the same media enthusiasm we saw for Mr. Trudeau’s attendance at the Pride Parade.
]]>So Canada has voted for change. Change can be good, there’s no denying that. But when change comes with a rejection of open discussion, when change comes with requirements that MPs vote the party line or lose their jobs, then change is not good. We now have a majority government in which that majority is muzzled on their own personal opinions, personal morals, and, by extension, the opinions of their constituents.
Granted, all parties can and should expect a certain level of adherence to party platforms. One doesn’t run for the Conservatives while harbouring the belief that we should allow open immigration to all. Nor does one run for the NDP while believing large corporations are the way of the future. But issues of conscience, morals, and religious belief should not preclude anyone from political involvement.
The Honorable Justin Trudeau has gone on record stating that no one can be Liberal and vote pro-life, on any bill. Euthanasia is something to seriously consider, and abortion is a promoted choice, a women’s rights issue, even a necessity. At the same time, he claims to be a strong supporter of science. So fortunately for Trudeau, and even more fortunately for the pre-born children he casually dismisses, science tells us the abortion debate needs to be re-opened.
Trudeau’s thank-you speech focused on his “old-fashioned strategy” of talking to people, and really listening to them. Yet somehow he failed to talk to anyone who cared about life, or at least he failed to do that listening he’s so proud of.
Perhaps Canadians are in part to blame. Perhaps we didn’t bring up the issue of pre-born human rights as loudly and as clearly as we meant to. Perhaps we still don’t fully understand the implications of our “no-laws” approach to abortion, an approach that allows abortions at any stage, for any reason, from convenience to gender preference.
But science tells us unequivocally that babies are complete, unique, living human beings from conception onward, with their own DNA, their hair and eye colour already determined. They possess the ability to grow and develop at an astonishing rate, and the potential only to develop into a human being, nothing less.
Now science tells us even more. We know babies suck their thumb in the womb, startle to loud noises and bright lights, and recognize the sound of their mother’s voice and cadence of her accent immediately after birth. A recent study also now tells us that babies respond to music at 16 weeks, pulling their tongues in motions indicative of attempts to sing long before they are actually able to speak. Babies respond more strongly after birth to music they heard repeatedly while in the womb.
These unique, living, hearing, singing little babies mean nothing to Prime Minister Trudeau, at least as long as there are mothers and society who don’t want them. He plans to leave the Criminal Code definition where it stands in Section 223 (1): a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother (italics added).
Note those italics. We aren’t talking about when a pre-born child actually, scientifically becomes a human. We’re talking about when we want to define it as such. Such moral relativism has served us very poorly in the past. When we separate legal recognition of personhood from scientific proof of humanity, we set ourselves up to commit grave injustices under the letter of the law. Consider the slave trade, the Holocaust, and, particularly relevant in this “women’s rights” battle, the fact that our own Supreme Court did not consider women to be legal persons in recent history.
To declare that someone is not legally a person is to declare them open targets for victimization, abuse, degradation, and killing. When killing a human does not equal killing a person, we have lost our way.
Canada as a country cannot lose its way. Prime Minister Trudeau must take strong leadership, leadership that is willing to admit it has been wrong, willing to set aside the emotion that served so well in the campaign and settle into government where they take an evidence-based look at the issues. Prime Minister Trudeau needs to be willing to use the majority it has been entrusted with to effect real change. The deaths of 100,000 pre-born children annually in Canada are now on his head.
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.
]]>
A political campaign being carried out by anti-abortion groups is evoking reactions from across the country. The two groups, Campaign Life Coalition and Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform have combined their resources and are in the process of delivering one million postcards in advance of the October federal election. The postcards show an aborted baby juxtaposed with the well-known face of Justin Trudeau and the phrase “No 2 Trudeau”. It’s a provocative message to be sure.
Parents of young children who receive the postcards are emotionally disturbed, and abortion advocates are irate that choice is being exposed. Justin Trudeau’s reaction? He has gone on the offensive. The Liberal leader wants to make abortion an election issue and for well over a year now has been intentionally misleading Canadians by stating that abortion is a Charter right and his is the “party of the Charter”.
Mr. Trudeau, like many Canadians, believes in a woman’s right to choose abortion. The notion we should celebrate that Canada allows abortion for any reason at any point in a pregnancy is lamentable. The Charter nowhere grants a right to abortion and the Supreme Court of Canada has never interpreted it to allow for unregulated abortion. Rather, they have looked to Parliament to pass regulations that are constitutional and protect the foetus at some point in its development.
In the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Morgentaler [1988] we read this from Justice Bertha Wilson, “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” Justice Wilson, who some say was the most liberal Supreme Court judge on the bench at the time also wrote about the need for a developmental view of the foetus. She writes, “A developmental view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages.” The judges who struck down Canada’s abortion regulations as they were written prior to 1988 clearly did not envision a legal void spanning nearly three decades.
It is time for Canada to follow every other democratic nation and begin to protect pre-born human rights. For example, is Mr. Trudeau aware that in Germany and Australia women have the right to choose even though those countries have long-established abortion regulations? These regulations prevent the killing of foetuses in the latter stages of pregnancy or abortions simply because of a preferred gender. In other words women don’t have the right to choose “at all costs” and there is a recognition that pre-born human rights need to be protected at some point. The refusal by Parliament to put forward responsible measures which would regulate abortion leaves Canada in company of only China and North Korea.
In addition to the court’s interpretation of Parliament’s role in regulating abortion Trudeau’s own father also understood well that a woman’s right to abortion “at all costs” was not something he could support. In speaking to the Montreal Star in 1972 Trudeau senior quipped, “The foetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body. And if you kill it you’ll have to explain.” Not to suggest Justin be bound by what his father says, the elder Trudeau was simply relaying a scientific fact – one that his son seems completely ignorant of.
Canadian women will legally be allowed to end their pregnancies for the foreseeable future, but regulations are necessary and it’s time that Canada took steps to protect pre-born human rights. Laws restricting abortion to a certain stage of pregnancy or prohibiting it for sex-selective purposes will not take away a woman’s right to choose; rather regulations such as these would better reflect our constitutional obligations towards children in the womb and bring us in line with international standards.
Mike Schouten is the director for WeNeedaLAW.ca, a public awareness campaign building support for the protection of pre-born human rights.
]]>
The federal Liberal leader has endorsed the P.E.I. Liberals in the upcoming provincial election and was campaigning with P.E.I. Liberal leader Wade MacLauchlan this week in Summerside when he came under attack from the federal NDP. The reason it seems is because Mr. MacLauchlan has indicated that if elected he would continue to support the status quo. Currently abortions are not provided on the island and women travel off the island to have their pre-born child killed.
An article on the official NDP website reads:
“He claims his party ‘defends rights,’ yet fails to do so. Will Mr. Trudeau stand by his convictions and tell Wade MacLauchlan that women’s right to choose is non-negotiable, or does he support this anti-choice Liberal policy? Canadians deserve better.”
It is a pretty sad indictment on the status of our culture if in the game of politics the lusting after power is carried out by seeing who can be most supportive of the legal killing of human beings.
]]>