This intense case raises major questions about the humanity of the pre-born child. In Canada, a child becomes legally recognized as such when it emerges from its mother’s womb. Section 223 (1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

• 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, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Lynlee’s head was carefully maintained inside the uterus during the operation in order to prevent the uterus from thinking the pregnancy was over, so under Canadian law she did not “completely proceed” from the womb.  However, it is clear that Lynlee Boemer was a person during her surgery. Otherwise what on earth were the surgeons operating on and striving to save? A clump of disposable cells? Certainly not. And when she was replaced in her mother’s womb, then, did that right to personhood disappear along with the physical sight of her? Could her mother have chosen an abortion after that point? And if not, if her legal right to personhood and life remained, what makes her different than any other baby at 23-weeks gestation?

These are questions abortion supporters don’t want to ask, and don’t want to answer. Even the staunchest defender of a “woman’s right to choose” gets squeamish in the face of a living baby operated on outside its mother’s body and then placed back in. And so they should – there is no clearer evidence of the humanity of the pre-born child apart from its mother’s body.  “Her body, her choice” distracts from the truth that the child may be in the mother’s body, but it is not her body. A separate, growing body, with unique human DNA was in this case being killed by a tumor leaching her vital blood supply – a tumor that was not affecting the mother’s health.

How long can abortion defenders use the “her body, her choice” rhetoric in the face of this unrelenting scientific evidence? We may be thankful that doctors such as the fetal specialists in this case recognize the value of pre-born children and are willing to use their talents and knowledge to save them. When abortion is not an option, extraordinary, beautiful things can happen.

This initially seems well-intentioned, as the required information on fetal pain would force mothers to seriously consider the fact that they are ending a life, and, for those who choose to go ahead, it aims to prevent suffering for the tiny victim. The law quickly falls apart, however, in the small print. It is unclear to doctors what will be considered adequate pain relief for the pre-born child. Some suggest Motrin for mom will suffice, to be minimally absorbed by the soon-to-be-aborted child, while others think the intention is an injection through the mother’s abdomen directly to her child.

In addition to this lack of clarity is the odd exemption of this requirement in cases of rape, incest, or serious risk to the mother’s health. So it seems they only care whether the pre-born child feels pain as long as it is a healthy child who is simply an inconvenience or mistake. Either we care about the pain a pre-born child feels during abortion, or we don’t. This exemption says the pre-born child’s life is still not as valuable as the life of the mother, and their rights end where difficult circumstances are involved.

A law that recognizes the ability of a pre-born child to feel pain would be a step in the right direction. This would not only show an ability to care about those much weaker than ourselves, it would also be a law reflective of scientific advances. Such a law, however, needs to recognize pain equally regardless of what the mother’s circumstance may be. Just as we would not make exceptions for which mothers deserve pain medication during an abortion, or which born babies should receive pain medication before surgery, so we should strive for a law that makes no exceptions for the pre-born baby either.

We are asking you today to:

1. Pray for all those who have been deceived into thinking abortion is the simple removal of a bunch of cells.
2. Pray that as the truth of abortion is exposed hearts and minds will be changed to oppose this wicked injustice.
3. Take a couple minutes to send this email to your MLA/MPP asking him or her to end the funding of abortion. Go to http://simple.arpacanada.ca/choose, click on your province and look for the letter titled, “Why are we funding this?”

Thanks so much for making a difference!

The WNAL team

Most health jurisdictions around the world have legislation that protects vulnerable minors by enacting parental consent for abortion legislation, including 39 of the 51 states just south of us. As stated in our recently released legal opinion:

“Beyond healthcare, age restrictions are used to determine when a person can vote, drive, sell property, stop attending school, consent to sex and marry.  All of these restrictions all have some element of a literal arbitrariness but this does not automatically invalidate them, and in fact, they are a common and necessary was of ordering our society.  Some of these also have a parental consent component.  For example, youth under 18 years of age who wish to marry.    Like abortion, marriage carries with it potentially serious consequences and implications.  Yet choosing to marry is a reversible decision.  Abortion is not.”

Requiring parental consent for abortion is not only good for the health and well-being of adolescents, it also saves the lives of pre-born children. This week marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Minnesota’s parental notification requirement and in that time period abortions performed on minors has dropped an astounding 79%! See here for more on the impact of Minnesota’s parental laws.

Parental consent does not equal parental control – it is about responsibility and care.  A parental consent law makes it clear that the government supports young women as well as the lives they may carry, and is working to enhance their well-being now and across their lifespan.

A few weeks ago we received an incredibly generous offer that we are excited to share. Five key supporters are willing to donate $8,500 to the cause, and would love to see us grow our donor base by gaining 100 new monthly supporters by June 10th – that’s only SIX DAYS away, but we know we can do it!

Check out Mike’s video message below!

Sincerely,

The WNAL Team

PS – You can join our monthly donor program here.

{youtube}AwyApKyUOqg&feature=youtu.be{/youtube}

The petition states: “Pregnancy Care Centres are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions.” In actuality it is their claim that is a lie.

ACTION ITEM: Use this Compliment Form on the Toronto Transit Commission website to let them know you support freedom of expression and the ability of Pregnancy Care Centres to advertise on TTC buses.

Click here for link to Compliment Form. Please make use of one of the sample letters below by copy and pasting it into the form on the TTC website. You are welcome to edit but we’re trying to make it easy for you. J

Thanks for your immediate attention to this matter!

The WNAL team

Dear Toronto Transit Commission,

I want to express my appreciation for the pregnancy care centre advertisements on your buses. These centres are vital to a community as the services they offer are exactly what those with unplanned pregnancies need.

It is unfortunate that choice-focused individuals and organizations take a fundamentally flawed approach to the issue of abortion. They frame the problem as, “Choice and bodily autonomy at all costs and anyone who opposes that opposes women’s rights.”  This “at all costs” approach is harming the very women it sets out to protect and it certainly is standing in the way of pregnancy care centres reaching out to the women who desperately need the help they can offer.

Sincerely,

Dear Toronto Transit Commission,

The pregnancy care centre ads on local buses are awesome! Clearly the folks who volunteer and work at these facilities have a caring heart and want to ensure that a woman with an unplanned pregnancy receives the best care possible.

A large majority of Canadians are not comfortable with the high rate of abortions and the truth is that pregnancy care centres play an important role in minimizing the perceived need for a woman to terminate her pregnancy. They are on the frontlines of assisting those who need help.

Sincerely,

Dear Toronto Transit Commission,

It troubles me to know that abortion advocates are upset by the pregnancy care centre ads currently displayed on your buses. Freedom of expression is something we should all take very seriously. The efforts by some to censor information they happen not to agree with ignores the reality that we live in a society with constitutionally protected freedoms – including the freedom of expression.

Simply because unplanned pregnancy is seen to be a controversial issue does not give one side of the conversation any right to shut out those looking for options other than abortion. Those advertising for abortion are free to advertise their belief too, and they do.

Thank you for recognizing the freedom of expression guaranteed to all Canadians.

Sincerely,

In a free and democratic society, organized rallies and protest are part of the political process. In a nation where every citizen has a voice in electing their representative, where every citizen can contribute to the public policy debate, and where every citizen can independently lobby for change, protests play a legitimate role. Protests are not inherently anarchist or anti-government. When done legally, in a peaceful and organized fashion, protests are a means of engaging with the elected leadership on an issue, demonstrating to them that many citizens care deeply about this particular issue and that they expect change.

André goes on to write,

Also, a distinction could be made between protesting for others, over protesting for our own individual interests. There is definitely a Christian obligation for the former over the latter. This is borne out in the command to love one’s neighbour as oneself, and to be our brother’s keeper. Turning the cheek applies to personal insult and persecution, and not to persecution of others. We need to stand up for our neighbours, including the pre-born ones.

And so this week thousands of Christians will be marching with many other concerned citizens in Ottawa and capital cities throughout the country. The 2015 March for Life, like all other years is a peaceful protest to the stark, and vulgar reality that our pre-born neighbours have no legal protection throughout the entire period of pre-natal development. This year there will also be specific focus on the recent legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide as a result of the Supreme Court ruling a few months ago.

Concerning pre-born human rights Canada’s courts have consistently referred to abortion as medically necessary. But, no court – at any level – has excluded the possibility of governments (provincial or federal) from regulating abortion. In fact, in the most famous case dealing with abortion, R. v. Morgentaler [1988], the Supreme Court was nearly emphatic that while the abortion regulations at the time were found to be unconstitutional, Parliament had a duty to enact new laws that were both constitutional and protected the fetus at some point.

In several provinces there is a specific focus at 2015 March for Life events to build support for parental consent or notification laws. It is unfortunate that many choice-focused individuals and organizations take a fundamentally flawed approach to the issue of parental consent for abortion. They frame the problem as, “Choice and bodily autonomy at all costs and anyone who opposes that opposes women’s rights.” Unfortunately, this “at all costs” approach harms the very women it sets out to protect, especially when it is applied to adolescents making decisions on whether to continue a pregnancy.

Nationally there is a continuing push for laws which address gendercide or sex-selective abortion as well as the more recent building of support for a pre-born victims of crime law. These both will receive attention at the National March for Life in Ottawa.

Canada has a long ways to go in regards to implementing abortion regulations which are already in place in all other democratic nations. The virtue of perseverance is something we pray for daily as we work to advance pre-born human rights both federally and provincially.

The March for Life is an opportunity to respond to the call of Proverbs 24:

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward the slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?”

We know what abortion is and what it does. For those Christians who are hesitant to join in peaceful protest – or even militantly opposed – it must be said that God is not simply suggesting that we get involved, he is ordering us to do something! If not, we risk serious consequences. Let your March for Life experience be a springboard to year-round activism as, in God’s strength, we do everything possible to protect all those created in His image.

Confidentiality, first of all has proven to be of crucial importance in getting adolescents to use health care, particularly with regards to reproductive issues [1]. This is obviously not, however, a fact unique to adolescents, though it is certainly portrayed that way. Interestingly, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada references an American privacy law (HIPAA) as an example of why confidentiality is crucial and parents should not be informed if their daughter chooses an abortion. That law, however, specifically mentions abortion in the context that an adolescent minor (under 18) may only maintain confidentiality in cases “when a minor has requested and received court approval to have an abortion without parental consent or notification” (emphasis added) [1]. It is grouped with HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections in that patient confidentiality may be maintained following court consent, but treatment or action cannot occur without adult consent. Further, confidentiality is not broken in that parents are told in secret. Adolescents are made aware of the requirement and informed of the need for parental consent before contact is made, and given the knowledge that they have the opportunity to seek court consent instead if necessary.

Access to health care, then, is the other major consideration.  Such access can actually be improved by a parental consent law.  It can be very difficult for adolescents to navigate the health care system on their own, from making appointments to transportation to appointments to accessing the follow-up care they may need.  Absences from school or home will need to be explained, and the stress of dealing with pregnancy alone is obviously significant for an adolescent.  Studies show that adolescents often know later in their pregnancy that they have conceived, or at least do not seek medical attention until they are “beyond facilities’ gestational age limits”. [2] While Canada has no laws restricting abortion, most doctors will only perform abortions before the 20 week mark, as after this point the fetus is considered viable. If the adolescent does present early enough for a drug-induced medical abortion, the complication and failure rates are higher than for surgically-induced abortion, so parental involvement and care can be very valuable [3].

An adolescent who gets an abortion in secret is more likely to hide her pain and complications following the procedure, putting her health at risk, and parents will not know to watch for signs of physical or psychological struggling. Studies have found a significantly higher rate (3-6x) of suicide in 15-24 year olds following induced abortions when compared to those who are not pregnant or who chose childbirth when pregnant, as well as decreased self-esteem and feelings of guilt, fear and confusion over what occurred [4-7]. A review of the literature from 1995-2011 found that pregnancy loss, including through abortion, carries a higher risk of subsequent mental disorder than childbirth. Thirteen studies showed a clearly higher risk for the abortion group versus those who chose childbirth, while only 5 studies found no difference [8].

The Canadian Medical Association, in its official policy on induced abortion, stresses the need for full and immediate counselling services for patients in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.  This is much easier to ensure and maintain with parental consent requirements in place [9]. Helping or encouraging adolescents to keep their pregnancies and abortions secret is helping them isolate themselves at a particularly vulnerable time, at an age where their coping mechanisms are not yet well-developed. That doesn’t sound like a consideration of best interests at all.

We must briefly consider the concern that is sure to be raised in dramatic fashion almost immediately.  Is there the possibility that parental consent requirements will drive some adolescents to self-harm or illegal means of obtaining abortions in an effort to avoid telling their parents, or the now-infamous “coat hanger argument”? This common rhetoric has always held true for a small, sensationalized minority of cases, and will continue to do so. Desperate young women, like desperate older women, will take desperate measures. This does not, however, negate the need for a parental consent law with all its potential benefits for the majority.  Rather than abandon parental consent, we should instead focus on alternate front-line support for these women who feel their situation is so dire they cannot possibly share the news of a pregnancy with a parent or guardian.

In terms of decision-making and consent, the terms mature or immature are not meant as a comment on an adolescents’ character or intellect, but rather as a scientific reality in terms of brain development. Not only are adolescents likely to make their pregnancy-related decisions in a state of stress, emotion, and exhaustion, they are also doing so with a less-developed prefrontal cortex than an adult, one of the “key ways the brain doesn’t look like that of an adult until the early 20s” [10]. Adolescent brains show marked differences not in intellectual ability compared to adults, but in areas of impulse control and planning for the future.  Those last-to-develop capacities are critical to making an informed decision on parenthood. These abilities are accessible in their parents, who can assist them in reasoning through a decision beyond the emotional basis, and beyond what peers are capable of.

In addition to the incomplete brain development of adolescents, there are marked hormonal shifts occurring in adolescence.  These shifts affect the intensity with which emotion is felt as well as stress levels. Add to that the hormonal shifts that come with pregnancy and you have a dangerous decision-making cocktail which, like many cocktails, will lead to regretted decisions.

The argument put forward regarding adolescents needing consent to continue with a pregnancy should be dismissed without further consideration.  Just as parental consent is needed for any surgery, so it should be needed for abortion at any stage of pregnancy – we do not ask for parental consent for an adolescent to get appendicitis or cancer, we simply involve them in helping their child cope with the consequences. As stated in R. v. Morgentaler, abortion is not a right, and should not be treated as such [12].

Parental consent does not equal parental control – it is about responsibility and care. Parents can share their reasoning and attempt to influence the decision, but the main goal is to provide support for pregnant adolescents regardless of the outcome of their pregnancy.

Sources:

1 English, A. & Ford, C. (2004). The HIPAA privacy rule and adolescents: Legal questions and clinical challenges. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 36 (2)

2 Dobkin, L., Perucci A. & Dehlendorf, C. (2013). Pregnancy options counseling for adolescents: Overcoming barriers to care and preserving preference. Adolescent Pregnancy, 43 (4), 96-102.

3 Lanfranch, A., Gentles, I. & Ring-Cassidy, E. (2013). Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women. The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, ON, Canada.

4 Ely, G., Flaherty, C. & Cuddeback, G. (2010). The relationship between depression and other psychosocial problems in a sample of adolescent pregnancy termination patients. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 27 (4) 269-282.

5 Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987–94: register linkage study. BMJ 313: 1431.

6 Curley, M. & Johnston, C. (2013). The characteristics and severity of psychological distress after abortion among university students. Journal of Behavioral Services & Research, 40 (3), 279-293.

7 Humphrey, M., Colditz, P., Flenady, V. & Whelan, N. (2013) Maternal and Perinatal Mortality and Morbidity in Queensland Queensland Maternal and Perinatal Quality Council Report 2013. State of Queensland (Department of Health). Retrieved from http://www.health.qld.gov.au/caru/networks/docs/qmoqc-report-2013-full.pdf

8 Bellieni, C. & Buonocore, G. (2013). Abortion and subsequent mental health: Review of the literature. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 67 (5), 301-310.

9 CMA Policy: Induced Abortion. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD88-06.pdf

10 The teen brain: Still under construction. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml

11 Canadian Medical Association, Code of Ethics, 2004. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/policy-research/CMA_Policy_Code_of_ethics_of_the_Canadian_Medical_Association_Update_2004_PD04-06-e.pdf

12 R. v. Morgentaler (1988) 1 SCR 30, 1988 CanLII 90 (SCC). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZcGFyZW50YWwgY29uc2VudCBhYm9ydGlvbgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1

The reality is abortion is already legal. Even if there is no abortion law, abortion remains legal. Adding restrictions doesn’t make it legal, nor does it make abortion more legal. Some of what was legal is now made illegal (e.g., abortion after 12 or 18 weeks’ gestation), thereby saving some lives and limiting evil. That is exactly what the Bible calls the State to do – to limit evil.

Some might object, “Wouldn’t a law prohibiting abortions after a certain number of weeks arbitrarily divide humans into ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’ classes?” The continuum of human life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. Currently under Canadian law only “born” humans have protection, so our law today already divides humans into “protected” and “unprotected” classes.

Therefore, if the law was changed to reflect increased protection by extending it to “pre-born” humans from 12 or 18 weeks to birth, then fewer babies would fall under the unprotected class, thus limiting the injustice of abortion.