In 2018, when we ran our “Canada has no abortion laws” billboard campaign, the result was surprise and incredulity. Surely, people say, there must be a law. It’s a fact most Canadians (up to 80%) don’t know, and something they really need to know when considering where they stand on abortion. When polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are satisfied with our current abortion policies, what does this mean, if the vast majority don’t even know what our current policies are (or, in our case, aren’t)?

Many Canadians believe abortion is only done in the early stages of pregnancy, and they’re okay with that. We aren’t okay with that, but we can generally agree that once a fetus is viable, around 23 weeks or so, they should not be aborted for the same circumstantial reasons used to justify earlier abortions.

Late-term abortion forces people to face the humanity of a pre-born child, and the brutal methods by which abortion is accomplished at this stage. With a pre-born child too large to abort easily, late-term abortions involve multi-day dilation, fetal dismemberment, lethal injections, and inspecting a pile of recognizable body parts to make sure everything came out.

It’s no wonder most doctors want no part in this, one of the main challenges to increasing access.

When we look for common ground with those who support abortion, late-term abortion regularly tops the list. Let’s have this discussion, and talk about exactly when life deserves protection.

 

Many in Canada were surprised by the acceptance of the law in New York, but, in a video from the Christian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPPS), Dr. Laura Lewis points out that it makes New York no different from Canada. With no abortion law in Canada’s criminal code, viable babies can be aborted at any point if a doctor is found willing to do it.

It is important to note, in the context of late-term abortion, that there is no medical reason to abort a baby in the third trimester to save the life of the mother. If health concerns arose, the baby could be delivered prematurely and cared for in the best way possible, a much different approach than deliberately killing the baby in the womb.

Dr. Lewis also stresses the caution needed in assuming the value of a human life based on a prenatal diagnosis. These diagnoses, which generally come to light later in pregnancy, are often the reason cited for choosing late-term abortion. This vastly underestimates the contributions and lives of those with disabilities, as well as ignoring the high rate of inaccurate diagnoses.

Canadians should never look at New York and feel superior. We set the example they chose to follow, of complete disregard for human life in the womb. There is no good reason for this disregard there, and no good reason for it here. That is why we continue working to change hearts and minds on the value of human life in its earliest stages, and to impress on our elected leaders their responsibility to defend children in the womb.

Read our position paper on why abortion is never medically necessary, and should never be considered health care.

______________________________________________________________

Working in the part of the pro-life movement that supports women facing a crisis pregnancy, I often receive comments like, “This is what the pro-life movement needs – people actually helping women instead of trying to make policies or laws about abortion.”

Here’s why I think that’s wrong.

Though I (obviously) agree that helping women is vital, we do still need a law. You can offer a woman all the help and support in the world and she can still turn around and abort her baby at any stage, because abortion is always an option. We need actual legal protection for our tiniest members because that’s what every human being deserves. A child’s right to life shouldn’t depend on the circumstances of his or her mother, or the amount of support and help she receives. A child’s right to life should be protected by the law because babies in the womb are human beings.

To be honest, I’m writing angry. I’m writing having just found out that a woman I’ve been in contact with for many weeks decided to go and abort her baby at 16 weeks. I’m angry because the abortion procedure of a second trimester fetus is gory and brutal and unfathomable and I’m just heartbroken that this little baby met such a gruesome death. I’m angry because this woman was offered all kinds of support to be able to parent her baby: housing needs, clothing, baby equipment, counselling…the list goes on. We had also discussed adoption as an option. But despite all the help and support she was given, she still turned around and had her baby killed.

This is why we need a law.

The ‘helping pregnant women’ segment of the pro-life movement isn’t going to close-up shop when Canada finally introduces an abortion law; we will be more necessary than ever. We will continue to help mothers and fathers and children during pregnancy, and for years after the baby is born. The only difference will be that killing babies won’t be an option anymore.

And so, as someone working on the front lines with women in crisis, I stand in full support of the work the political pro-life organizations are doing, because every life should be protected by law.

To ‘Baby E’, I’m sorry our legal system failed you.

As Maloney herself notes, there is much speculation about why and how these deaths happen. The sources listed on her blog give us numbers but they don’t tell us how or why these children died after a failed abortion, and why this is still considered an abortion rather than a stillbirth or murder.

But ignoring the issue because of the gray areas will never gain us more clarity. We have a pretty terrible reporting system around abortion. Hospitals report their abortion-related data, but they perform only about a quarter of the approximately 100,000 abortions that occur annually in Canada. Private clinics take care of the remaining 75%, but they are not required to report their data on anything from gestational age at the time of abortion to complications that followed.

To be clear, most late-term abortions are performed in hospitals, and so recorded. Clinics generally do not perform abortions after the first trimester. It is also likely that many of these children suffered from diseases or abnormalities that resulted in a quick death after birth, or their hearts were injected with something intended to kill them prior to birth which took effect shortly after. However, until we know for sure with proper records, these vague and horrifying numbers will have no context and there will be no criminal consequences for potentially real criminal acts.

Our Criminal Code is very clear that pre-born children are not considered persons under the law until they have proceeded, in a living state, from the body of the mother. At this point, after exiting the ‘magical birth canal’ as one viral video calls it, the child has full human rights. The death of a child that proceeded in a living state from its mother may be called a failed abortion, but the rights conferred on that child at birth should stand.

So should these deaths be called abortions? Is medically-induced delivery of a baby prior to its due date with the intention of letting it die abortion? We would argue it is not, in terms of statistics. Killing a child in the womb and removing the pieces is abortion. This forced delivery without intent to save falls more to the line of infanticide.

Most presume these late-term abortions happen because a fatal abnormality or disability has been detected by ultrasound. This may occasionally be the case, but it is just as likely that the disability is simply unwanted. This could be anything from Trisomy 18 to Down Syndrome to a cleft palate.

It seems we allow children born alive to die without intervention because they are not, for whatever reason, wanted anymore. Often these babies start off wanted, and it is devastating to their parents to discover their child will not be what they hoped and dreamed. We don’t want to minimize the grieving that can accompany a late-term prenatal diagnosis. But neither can we minimize the reality that the diagnosis changes a wanted child to an unwanted one on the whim of the parents. The humanity of the child doesn’t change, but the value placed on her does.

This has an impact on all Canadians who have, or live with, or know someone with, a disability or abnormality. This is a form of ableism that determines the value of a life by comparing it with a subjective ideal.

In Canada, we claim to be a leader in human rights, yet we allow pre-born humans to be aborted because they are girls, because they have a cleft palate, or because they have Down syndrome. Polls show that close to 80% of Canadians assume we have laws limiting abortion at some point in pregnancy. Those Canadians do not believe things like this could happen in Canada, and abortion activists and the media certainly aren’t doing anything to disillusion them.

Every other democracy in the world has some legal protections for children in the womb; Canada does not. Let’s have the discussion. Let’s insist on statistics that account properly for a child’s birth and death. Let’s say there are things which are simply not okay.

We talked about the very specific changes we ask for through our goals of banning sex-selective abortion, recognizing pre-born victims of crime, and implementing an International Standards Law to regulate abortions after 13 weeks gestation. To hear the full conversation, including what some of her listeners had to say, click below (to skip the commercials, start listening at 2 minutes 40 seconds).

Except, there is an inconsistency in when science matters and when it doesn’t. When discussing human life, and the genesis of each human being, science is completely ignored and that includes the possible experience of pain a fetus may feel during the abortion procedure.

In Europe, restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation are common and accepted, and, as such, fetal pain is addressed much differently than in Canada or the United States. In North America, many people come from a perspective of fear, where any consideration given to a fetus is viewed as an attack on women’s rights.

Studies from India and the United Kingdom refer to the rising demand for fetal surgery, and the “considerable evidence that the fetus may experience pain” leads to the uncomplicated conclusion that the right types and doses of anesthetic need to be determined for various procedures. It is clear that anesthesiologists require specialized training to address the needs of pregnant women and their pre-born children.

Multiple studies have shown that even babies who are not yet viable (before 20-24 weeks) exhibit consistent, measurable stress responses to pain. While many still debate the brain science behind this, a study out of the UK says these reactions themselves are enough to result in “a moral obligation to provide fetal anaesthesia and analgesia.”  It has also been shown and attested to by multiple doctors specializing in the field of fetal surgery that “pain and stress may affect fetal survival and neurodevelopment.”

A study from Belgium admits that providing anesthesia prenatally presents a challenge, both from the perspective of its questionable necessity as well as dosage considerations. Still, recognizing the delicate balance when both mother and child need to be taken into account is fundamentally different from the Canadian question of whether both need to be taken into account.

Kirti Saxena, published in the Indian Journal of Anesthesia, states, “After surgery there are two patients to be cared for, and a second operating room should be available in case further surgery is needed in the neonate.”

As science and medicine continue to advance, fetal surgeries will become more common. Increased prenatal testing and diagnosis may lead to increased abortions, but seem just as likely to lead to increased demand for reliable fetal surgeries to give children their best chance at life.

In Canada, we need to follow the lead of our European counterparts, where fetal surgery and fetal anesthetic are inextricably linked, and where the humanity of the second patient is assumed, not demonized. This will allow fetal surgery as a field to improve and develop to become another support system for women.  Our laws need to reflect the humanity of the second patient in fetal surgeries, honouring the mothers who choose to give their babies a chance as well as the doctors who pour their talents into such tiny, fragile patients.

This article was written by Anna Nienhuis, Research and Communications Coordinator for WeNeedaLAW.ca. It first appeared in LifeCanada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted with permission.

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.

Dr. Morin. Photo credit: Albert Olive/EPA

Obviously, we believe there should be a law against late-term abortions first and foremost to protect pre-born children. There is no doubt that these are feeling human beings, and even the pro-abortion advocates do not deny their humanity at this point. They simply believe that these pre-born babies are less valuable humans because of their location and dependent state. But alongside protecting pre-born children, a late-term abortion law also criminalizes doctors and clinics who capitalize on desperation in such a proud, callous way.

There is a persistent fear that any law criminalizing abortion targets women who are low income, abused, or otherwise desperate not to have a baby. The goal of such laws, however, is to protect such desperate women from those who would take advantage of them, and to create a society where we must have supports and safeguards in place for these vulnerable women.

Continuing to allow abortion in no way protects vulnerable women, or future generations of vulnerable women. Rather, it allows us to stay trapped in a vicious cycle where our most desperate and most vulnerable stay exactly that.

Criminalizing abortion cannot be done in a vacuum. It must be done out of true respect for life, the lives of both mother and child.  We cannot respect the lives of pre-born children, yet tell women they will lose their jobs, their homes, or their social support if they choose to keep their baby.  To be pro-life is to fight for pre-born children and for women, to value both equally and to insist on care that allows both not only to live, but also to thrive.

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.”

We can be thankful for courageous politicians who recognize that tearing human beings apart is a gross human rights violation. Legislators in Kansas just passed a law banning the dismemberment of fetuses.

From LifeNews.com:

The state of Kansas has been a haven for late-term abortions for decades and pro-life advocates there successfully lobbied the legislature to approve new legislation that would help put an end to some of them.

“Dismemberment abortion kills a baby by tearing her apart limb from limb,” said National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D. “Before the first trimester ends, the unborn child has a beating heart, brain waves, and every organ system in place. Dismemberment abortions occur after the baby has reached these milestones.”

Here in Canada we have yet to see such boldness from our elected lawmakers and while we desire them to show more courage the pro-life movement can learn from our American counterparts as well. By working incrementally the pro-life movement in the United States continues to effectively advance pre-born human rights. The law passed in Kansas is not a perfect law; it doesn’t stop all abortions or save all pre-born children. But it saves some and saving some is better than saving none.