Taking a page out of federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s playbook, Mr. Gallant continues to misinterpret the law. This morning Premier Gallant was quoted as saying that he is eliminating Regulation 84-20 “in order to respect our legal obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada ruling and the Canada Health Act.”

But Mr. Gallant is misinformed. The Supreme Court has never ruled that it is illegal for the provinces to implement safeguards and regulations for medical procedures.

In addition to misinterpreting the law, Mr. Gallant is also willfully putting vulnerable women at risk. Lowering the standards and safeguards by, for example, removing the requirement for a specialist to perform the procedure, cannot be considered ‘pro-woman’.

The Canada Health Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-6 only requires that medically necessary services performed by a physician be provincially funded. Prior to today’s announcement the government of New Brunswick had restricted the use of taxpayer dollars for the purposes of abortion. Abortion is an elective surgery, and thus medically unnecessary – hence the moniker “pro-choice”. Abortion is one choice of many available to women with unplanned pregnancies.

Weakening the requirements whereby an abortion can be carried out will increase the likelihood of abuse by unscrupulous doctors who might approve an abortion on the basis of patient request rather than true medical necessity.

Canada’s abortion debate is raging again, spurred on by not only Justin Trudeau’s declarations of pro-choice totalitarianism in the federal Liberal Party, but also by his provincial party parrot in New Brunswick. Liberal leader Brian Gallant has picked up on Trudeau’s no-choice-but-pro-choice party line, announcing that, “We have committed, if we form government, that we’ll ensure that we swiftly act to find all barriers and eliminate them to ensure we’re respecting a woman’s right to reproductive choice.” Barriers which include inconveniently pro-life politicians who might be lurking within his party: “Any candidate that will respect that position and that will support that position can run for us,” Gallant assured the citizens of New Brunswick.

It’s an interesting political move. A LifeCanada poll several years ago found that 73% of Atlantic Canadians disagree with funding abortion on demand, with 20% supporting it and 7% undecided. That said, if the current polls are accurate, the Liberal Party is set to win a landslide victory on September 22. There is a combination of factors, of course—generations of Liberal voters and a wildly unpopular Tory premier, just to name two. People’s views on abortion, at least according to the polls, don’t necessarily change their voting behavior. The pro-life movement has a lot of work to do to make abortion an issue at the voting booth.

New Brunswick is one of the last places in Canada where any restrictions on abortion exist at all. For an abortion to be funded by the government, regulations stipulate that two doctors must claim that the abortion is “medically necessary.” This, Canada’s extremist pro-abortion vanguard says, is a draconian restriction that could result in women dying in back alleys.

I say “pro-abortion” for a very good reason. Restrictions have existed in the Maritimes for decades now, and there is not a shred of evidence that anyone has died in a back alley. In fact, in Prince Edward Island the abortion rate is reportedly less than half the national average, with just under ten abortions for every 100 live births rather than the average of 25 abortions in the rest of the country. The response of so-called reproductive rights activists has been to say that this is the result of women not having access to enough abortion information—stating in essence that the low abortion rate is a problem to be remedied. Gone is the “safe, legal, and rare” rhetoric of feminists such as Hillary Clinton and Naomi Wolf. Canada’s pro-abortion activists look at a low abortion rate with none of the apocalyptic consequences they threaten, and still see a problem.

Abortion activists know their hysterics are nonsense. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who served as the president of Planned Parenthood, noted that, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through any pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong much less save a life.” That was in 1967. We’ve come a long way in scientific fields like embryology since last century. Abortion is the violent termination of a developing human being. That’s not “medicine.” That’s “barbarism.”

Unfortunately for pro-lifers, the success of the minimal regulations in lowering the abortion rate in Atlantic Canada is not a success that the Tories seem to want to champion, as revealed by the deafening silence on this issue from New Brunswick’s ill-fated Premier David Alward. The abortion extremists have in some areas successfully hijacked the national discussion on abortion while the spines of Tory politicians wilt like a pro-choice placard on a rainy day. Hard work has to be done to ensure that more reasonable voices prevail.

Jonathon Van Maren is the communication director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. 

Gallant’s position seems largely influenced by federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. For months now Trudeau has been talking nonsense about the legal status of abortion in Canada. He is either ignorant of the jurisprudence or is intentionally misrepresenting what the law says. Even as late as this past weekend, the flamboyant Trudeau was on CBC’s Sunday Edition telling listeners that his party is “a party of the Charter” and he will defend women’s rights at all costs. Does he really think all women are pro-abortion? As one female supporter said to me, “If he isn’t assuming that [all women are pro-abortion], then I’m offended as a citizen that he would strip me of democracy. We shouldn’t be putting up with this kind of patronizing attempt at leadership in a post-feminist Canada.”

The question that needs to be asked is “where are all the pro-life leaders?” David Alward is a pro-life leader and it looks like his four-year tenure as premier of New Brunswick is about done. Why isn’t he countering Gallant’s pro-choice platform? As the leader of the Progressive Conservatives surely he must know that nearly three-quarters of his province is opposed to the very thing Gallant is proposing – unrestricted access to publicly funded abortion for any reason at any time throughout a pregnancy. Certainly a large number of those 75% have always voted Liberal. But is Alward going to sit idly by while they all go into the voting booth next week and not do anything to court their vote? While there are still some hard-core abortion advocates who make the news once in a while, they are a minority who cannot morally, scientifically or logically defend the new Liberal position.

Canada has no legal protection for children before birth. The legal restriction in New Brunswick may result in fewer abortions, but it does not protect pre-born children. The last time we had any protections for pre-born children in Canada was before January 28,1988.

Canadians concerned about human rights for all members of the human family are making progress in advocating for laws protecting pre-born children at some stage of pregnancy. This is not an extreme position and politicians should not be afraid to debate it.

It is time for politicians not just to say they are pro-life, but to be pro-life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a martyr under the Nazi regime, 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.” Politicians at both federal and provincial levels – be emboldened!

Dear Mr. Gallant,

You recently told the Telegraph-Journal that, if elected premier, you would remove “all barriers” to abortion access. I interpret that to mean you support taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, in both hospitals and private clinics.

If you had already been premier, apparently you would have funded the now-closed Morgentaler Clinic, where 10,000 babies were killed. It seems you are ready to fund a similar facility in the future. The people of New Brunswick deserve to know that before voting.

And lest your mind glaze over at the mention of babies killed, let me remind you that the Canadian Medical Association refers to the unborn as “babies”, not just fetuses. I’m talking hard facts, not religious spin.

If you are okay with a policy that would result in thousands of children being aborted, based not on medical indications but essentially because they are unwanted, it cannot be because New Brunswickers demand that. Polls show people Atlantic residents strongly (70+%) oppose using their tax dollars for abortion on demand.

So why would you force New Brunswickers to pay for that? Apparently, you believe that’s what Canadian law requires. Now I like research. Please tell me where it says that. Because ever since the 1988 Morgentaler Supreme Court decision I’ve been reading the texts, and can’t find it!

A few months ago Justin Trudeau was roundly criticized for making a similar faulty claim that the law of the land requires abortion on demand. Legal scholar Margaret Somerville pointed out no such Charter right exists. On the Morgentaler decision, former chief justice of the PEI Supreme Court Gerard Mitchell said, “None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn.”

Canadian law may not prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. But it does not require it. You should acknowledge the distinction. New Brunswick is not legally obliged to remove “all barriers” to abortion.

Following April’s NB Liberal Party Convention, where Frank McKenna’s longstanding restrictive policy was overturned, a Maritime news anchor reported your comment that supporting choice is “a no brainer.” I respectfully ask if supporting taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, under the banner of “choice,” is really a “no brainer” when:
– 65% of Atlantic women polled said the law should generally not allow 2nd trimester abortions, routinely performed at the Morgentaler Clinic.
– Scientific studies have reported women have higher rates of suicidal behavior, depression and substance abuse after abortion.
– The Canadian Medical Association Journal identified the abortion of female babies as a cultural problem in Canada, and 92% of Canadians polled want the practice banned.
– Publicly funded abortion on demand could sky-rocket New Brunswick abortions from about 1,000 to 2,000 per year, sharply reducing a low birth rate identified as a major reason for our aging population and economic woes.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your views, and move toward a maternal health care policy providing quality care for both mother and baby, not for one at the expense of the other.

A child should be welcomed, not treated like some virus to be eliminated. Mothers “with child” need support, not violence to their wombs. This is not religion. It’s compassion and common sense.

Rex Murphy chided Justin Trudeau for letting “pro-choice fundamentalism” cloud his judgment about the law. May the same not be said of you. It would seem so at odds with your Scholten grandparents having had 22 kids! They sure respected unborn life. Would you even be here if they had not?

Sincerely,
Peter Ryan

Executive Director New Brunswick Right to Life Association

Even in spite of a crowd funding effort that reportedly raised more than $100,000 the clinic will close its doors for the last time at the end of the month.

The province of New Brunswick has become a battleground in recent months with pro-choice advocates demanding the government remove Regulation 84-20 which stipulates that a pre-born child can only be killed with public money if the act is carried out in a hospital and has been approved by two doctors. Meanwhile, pro-life activists have been encouraging Premier Alward and his government not to capitulate to those demands. Provincial governments have the constitutional responsibility to regulate health care, which the courts say includes the regulation of abortion.

It remains to be seen if the clinic’s closure will lower the number of lives ended in New Brunswick, but as the forceps and suction machines are used for the last time today, we celebrate a small achievement.

In Monday’s Sudbury Star, Ruth Farquhar, an Ontario freelance writer, wrote that it was a sad day for women as New Brunswick’s only private abortion clinic announced that it would be closing its doors due to lack of government funding of private centres. She expressed her disbelief that the province required the opinion of two physicians prior to an abortion procedure being performed. And since abortion was obviously a “medically necessary” procedure, she declared that the province was “clearly, from a legal standpoint, in violation of the Canada Health Act.”

Unfortunately Farquhar and others who argue that clinic procedures must be government funded don’t quite have the law on their side. Neither do they seem to be in favour of rigorous medical standards to protect women’s health.

If women want to undergo any surgical procedure, it is cautious and in fact ‘pro-woman’ to require that they consult a physician, and more so to require the opinion of more than one. No medical procedure is without risk.

Last weekend I had to undergo a Dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure due to a complication following the birth of my son. Now a D&C and an abortion aren’t unrelated procedures. A D&C is a surgical procedure where the lining of the uterus or some contents found in the uterus are removed. The same procedure is used for early abortions. In that case, it is the developing child in the womb who is removed.
Even though I was a fairly non-urgent case for Ottawa’s busiest hospital, no fewer than three doctors were involved in the decisions surrounding my D&C. Then four other physicians attended my surgery. I thought it was overkill, but clearly those with medical expertise thought otherwise. In fact, they thought it medically necessary.

Given my experience of undergoing a fairly simple and straightforward D&C, is it that unreasonable that the New Brunswick government requires two medical opinions stating that an abortion is necessary prior to a citizen undergoing surgery?

Farquhar also claims that abortions are “medically necessary.” What she is referring to is a term that provinces and territories may assign to certain medical procedures under the Canada Health Act. If a province determines that a procedure is “medically necessary”, it must fund that procedure with tax dollars through its public health insurance plan. But what is “medically necessary”?

I’ve had the painful experience of reading through the Canada Health Act as well as consulting all available court decisions which address the question of “medical necessity.” The reality is that the Act is vague and no court in Canada has provided a clear list of criteria help provinces, or Canadian citizens for that matter, determine on a case by case basis whether or not a medical procedure should be classified as medically necessary. This isn’t some clear and established legal term or test.

Farquhar is brazen in claiming that the New Brunswick government is in clear violation of the Act. I can’t imagine any lawyer worth their salt making that kind of legal assessment. In fact, Health Canada even states that it’s up to each province to determine for itself which procedures are considered medically necessary.

Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada states that the determination of whether a procedure should be deemed “medically necessary” is “a matter of professional medical judgment, based on the patient’s particular circumstances and needs.” Heck, that almost sounds like New Brunswick’s policy – two physicians assessing each patient individually, on a case by case basis, in accordance with their professional judgment.

Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves “pro-choice.” Indeed, “choice” is the governing principle of their movement. “My body, my choice” is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

Faye Sonier is a human rights lawyer practicing in Ottawa. She’s also a regular contributor to the ProWomanProLife.org project.

The signatories urge government officials to reject demands from abortion advocates to fund the Morgentaler Clinic with taxpayer dollars, and to not weaken the current regulations that require the approval of two doctors stating that an abortion is medically necessary.

“We are pleased to add our name to this open letter,” said WeNeedaLAW.ca director Mike Schouten. “Abortion can have serious consequences and we applaud New Brunswick for ensuring that at least some safeguards are in place. We certainly would not want to see the current regulations in that province weakened.”

Regulation 84-20, Schedule 2 (a.1) of New Brunswick’s Medical Services Payment Act stipulates that an abortion will only be funded if it is performed in a hospital after two doctors have certified in writing that the procedure is medically necessary.

The letter states,

We encourage you to embrace public policy that is truly pro-woman: that ensures women are fully informed about the abortion procedure, that women understand the seriousness of the risks they face because of the procedure, and, most importantly, that women don’t suffer through a medical operation that is, in fact, unnecessary.

“It is our hope that Premier Alward and the government of New Brunswick will be able to see through the rhetoric being flung at them and continue to make good decisions in regards to restricting the use of taxpayer dollars for the purposes of abortion,” said Schouten.

The letter concludes by saying,

The closing of a private, for-profit clinic shows that the pro-choice maxim is actually beginning to be achieved: abortions are to be safe, legal and rare. It is our hope you will not capitulate to those who demand the funding of elective medical procedures – abortions – at the Morgentaler Clinic.

I have dedicated my working life to the cause of life since 1977. I got involved because my only two siblings miscarried. I am the lone unborn survivor. I know I might not be here.

If I supported a woman’s “right to choose,” I’d be saying it’s okay if my mother had aborted me. I can’t say that. Who can? I have a right to life! So does everyone. It began before birth.

I am father of seven, grandfather of fifteen including two about to be born. When our pregnant daughter emailed us an ultrasound photo, we did not react, “Our grandfetus!” Who does? It’s a baby.

The Canadian Medical Association says the life of “a baby” begins at conception. Calling it a baby is no religious statement. It’s fact.

It’s wrong to play word games when the baby is unwanted. Terms like “clump of cells” are dishonest when the intent is to dehumanize. To differentiate the unwanted from the wanted is to travel the same road that leads to genocide.

Express your concerns by using this Simple Mail to government officials!

10,000 babies have died at the Morgentaler Clinic since it opened. That’s no religious statement. It’s undeniable truth.

Please note I have not even touched upon the issue of abortion’s morality. I have merely stated an important fact.

Surely that fact is relevant to the public discussion about using tax funds for the clinic. Arguments about “abortion access” that fail to note what the access is to – killing thousands of children – are at best superficial, at worst disingenuous.

In both life and public policy, truth matters. History is too full of examples where evil flourished when truth was suppressed or succumbed to word games like apartheid and “the final solution.” In public policy and life, integrity means facing up to the truth. Putting blinders on is unworthy of us.

Some will retort, “But abortion is legal.” As if that settles the argument. It does not, for three reasons.

First, the argument is a non sequitur. It is legal for me to build a rocket ship and fly to the moon. It does not follow the government has to pay for it.

Second, there is no Canadian legislation defining abortion’s legality. The 1988 Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court addressed the criminality of abortion, not public funding. No Canadian court has ruled the Charters of Rights requires a province to fund unrestricted abortion at a private clinic. It is an open issue.

Third, it is dishonorable to hide behind the law. Slavery was once legal. It was legal for Nazis to kill Jews. That did not make those activities just. Those who argue “abortion is legal” must explain why that is just, and cannot skirt the truth that abortion kills a child.

Again, some clinic supporters protest, “But the Canada Health Act has decided the matter. New Brunswick is in violation.” That is less than truthful. The Act is silent on abortion. The Act defers to the provincial constitutional power over health care, allowing each province to decide what it funds under the Act’s insurance provisions.

New Brunswick is within its legal right to not fund unrestricted abortion at private clinics. The fact most other provinces fund clinics does not mean they alone follow the Act. Critics who try to shame New Brunswick for standing apart act like bullies.

To be pro-life is not to point a finger at women who abort. Such women are in a panic over pregnancy; they often act under duress.

Our government and community should partner to better support women with relevant resources when they feel pressured to have abortions, as so many do. Our Women’s Care Center provides no-pressure, resource-based (including early ultrasound) support. A social environment where women are empowered to freely choose life is a desirable, achievable public policy goal.

Peter Ryan is the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Right to Life Association and this article is published here with his permission.

The news of the imminent closure of the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton, New Brunswick will mean that women seeking abortion in that province will have greater difficulty in doing so. This is a good thing. All too often women who find themselves in an unanticipated pregnancy will feel as though abortion is the only option they have. When that option is not readily available, other options will be considered.

Obviously there will be some who attempt to polarize the discussion by flippantly stating that the back alley will be her next option. Resorting to this shock and awe language is nothing short of extremist, and severely lacks any sentiment of love and compassion towards pregnant women in desperate need of help.

The decreased availability of abortion in New Brunswick will provide opportunity for improved care for women and their pre-born children. It will certainly require an increased focus by those directly involved with organizations like New Brunswick Right to Life in highlighting the options available, including that of adoption.

The pro-life movement in Canada has a long standing history of putting most of its resources into pregnancy care centres – showing love and compassion for pre and post-abortive women as well as care for their children and families. I am confident that they will embrace this opportunity with renewed vigour in New Brunswick, and you can be assured they will do it even without any public funding.