For a petition to be introduced and read in the House of Commons, it needs to be sponsored by an MP. Kitchener-Conestoga MP Harold Albrecht was found willing to sponsor this petition. When the petition recently came to the attention of pro-abortion groups, Albrecht was quickly attacked for the standard intellectually bankrupt or ad hominem arguments: not your body, not your choice; if you care about the pre-born children you somehow aren’t caring about women; caring about human rights is somehow backwards; and, of course, the fact that he’s a man who can’t bear children.

But Albrecht is a good example of playing offence, not defense. He knows he is in the right, and has never hidden his pro-life views. When approached by reporters with these critiques, he was clear and to the point. He pointed out that Canada is alone on the world stage in its lack of restrictions on abortion, and many democratic countries have successfully implemented abortion restrictions.

“I have worked to promote a culture of life, including improved palliative care, organ donation, suicide prevention, as well as protection for our pre-born,” Albrecht said. “There’s nothing new here.”

This is a good example of how we should all answer when challenged on our pro-life views, and a great opportunity to thank a politician for using his position to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Take a moment to send a note of encouragement to Mr. Albrecht thanking him for his clear, unapologetic stance and willingness to support pro-life views being heard in Parliament. He can be reached at harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca.

As many of you know, we’ve been advancing an ambitious plan to introduce abortion legislation in Canada. For those who were at our presentations last fall, or took part in our recent webinar, you’ll recognize this as what we call ‘Project Next Step’.  A huge part of this plan involves meeting with Members of Parliament to advocate for a specific piece of legislation – an International Standards Abortion Law.

We would be thrilled if you could join us in Ottawa for a few days of lobbying MPs for abortion legislation. Hearing from a wide variety of Canadians is critical for advancing abortion legislation, and this is an incredible opportunity to be heard by MPs who want to make a difference for the pro-life cause.

We want to make this as easy as possible for you! Here are a couple things to keep in mind as you make your decision:

1. We will be organizing all your meetings. All you need to do is fill out your availability using this Google form for the event. We will coordinate your meetings and notify you when they are booked.
2. We will be hosting a briefing session prior to the meetings. This will equip you with talking points and questions for your meetings. We will also have printed copies of the supporting documents and draft legislation for you to pass on to MPs you meet with.
3. There will be a pro-life reception hosted by the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus on Wednesday, April 10 from 6:00-7:30 pm. We would love to have you join us to mingle and fellowship with pro-life MPs and staffers! You will be able to indicate whether you can attend on the same form mentioned above, at this link.
4. Our Ottawa office will beavailable for any down times during your stay, if you want a place to sit down and relax and grab a cup of coffee. Also, please let us know if there is anything we can do to assist with the planning of your trip.

We are looking forward to a week of building relationships and meaningfully advancing pre-born human rights in Canada. We sincerely hope that you can join us!

But we still have a lot of ridings to fill.

If you’ve signed up, make sure to get your letter written and sent! And if you haven’t signed up, we’d love to have you.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THIS EFFORT TODAY

Here is some inspiration from letters that have been sent – feel free to use these snippets in your letter! It doesn’t have to be long or complicated, just a clear focused message that we need to regulate abortion in Canada.

“I am writing to you today to express my deep concern regarding abortion in Canada. We are the only first world nation with no legal protection for the most vulnerable among us; pre-born children. It is time to regulate abortion.”

 “I, and many others in your riding, believe that stopping a beating heart should never be anyone’s “right”.  So, I ask, how are you able to represent us against this clear discrimination [the Canada Summer Jobs grant attestation] of pro-life Canadians by our own government?”

“It is hard to believe that our Prime Minister, who persistently claims that “diversity is our strength” can, with such arrogance, simply write off the values of pro-life and pro-family Canadians.”

 “I realize that abortion is not a topic politicians like to discuss. But this does not mean it should not be discussed.”

Thank you to those who shared your letters with us, and gave permission for us to share them. May our combined efforts have an impact that is felt across this country as our elected officials get the message that We Need a Law!

Wondering if there’s anything else you can do to help? See if you live in or know anyone in one of the following ridings we’re still looking to fill. This is just a sample – there are still plenty more to fill!

Ontario:

Brampton North, Mississauga East—Cooksville, London North Centre, Thunder Bay—Superior North, Markham—Unionville, Sault Ste. Marie, Nepean, Cambridge, Eglinton—Lawrence, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Sarnia—Lambton, Hamilton Centre, Thunder Bay—Rainy River

British Columbia:

Vancouver East, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Egmont, Saanich—Gulf Islands, Kelowna—Lake Country, Courtenay—Alberni, New Westminster—Burnaby, Richmond Centre

Alberta:

Calgary, Foothills, Calgary Midnapore, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, Edmonton Mill Woods, Calgary Forest Lawn, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Edmonton Centre, Edmonton Griesbach

Nunavut

Quebec:

Rivière-du-Nord, Louis-Hébert, Trois-Rivières, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Berthier—Maskinongé, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, ongueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Mirabel

Yukon

Nova Scotia:

Cape Breton—Canso, Halifax West, Halifax, Central Nova

Manitoba: Winnipeg Centre, Winnipeg South, Dauphin-Swan River, Churchill-Keewatinook

Newfoundland & Labrador: Coast of Bays-Central-Notre Dame, St-John’s South, Long Range Mountains, Labrador

Please join us in writing to our MPs and encouraging others to do the same!

Who is Rick Peterson? He is one of the fourteen candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. He’s an investment advisor from Vancouver, BC, a self-avowed “progressive conservative” who joined the leadership race last November after many others had already been campaigning for months. One of fourteen candidates, he hasn’t even been on the radar of pro-lifers. In fact, according the pro-life group Right Now, he doesn’t even deserve consideration by Canadians who are working to advance pre-born human rights.

So, you may ask, what could possibly be in this Peterson email that serves to encourage us? I won’t quote the email in its entirety, but the middle three paragraphs are telling:

I will be compassionate in understanding that some women may choose to undergo an abortion because they find themselves in a difficult situation.

To that end, as Prime Minister, I will work with provinces in order to reduce teenage pregnancies and increase funding for psychological counseling in abortion clinics. I will also increase collaboration with charities and organizations that provide support to pregnant women in financial or psychological distress.  I will also support initiatives that inform pregnant women about financial aid and adoption programs as a mean to reduce the number of abortions.

In line with the Party platform, I will support and prioritize comprehensive legislation making it criminal to use abortion as a mean to discriminate against female fetuses. (emphasis added)

The email begins with Peterson stating that he is “pro-choice” and clearly he supports a women’s right to choose abortion. And yet, if elected, Mr. Peterson is promising to address teenage pregnancy, increase funding for charities (pregnancy care centres), and criminalize sex-selective abortion! The only other candidate to address these topics with tangible policy solutions is Pierre Lemieux, and based on his long pro-life record we would expect Lemieux to speak to this.

What would precipitate Peterson offering promises on something so far out of his wheelhouse? The answer is YOU! You have not given into the idea that the debate on pre-born human rights is over, and have made it clear that a successful leadership bid can include pro-life promises. Now, before I get too far ahead of myself or you misunderstand, I am not suggesting that Peterson should receive your support. We Need a Law is non-partisan, which means that we will not endorse or oppose any candidate. What I am saying is that, because of your persistence in calling for abortion laws, and your continued participation in all aspects of the political process, candidates are realizing that they need our support if want to have a chance of winning.

God only knows if Rick Peterson will be successful in the Conservative Party leadership race. What we have been given through his specific targeting of pro-life support is a huge endorsement of our efforts.

Please be encouraged and continue to press on!

When the Supreme Court in the U.S. legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) they extended a woman’s privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to her decision to have an abortion. This legal reality changed somewhat in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) when the court affirmed that a woman has a right to abortion, but only until fetal viability.

In Canada women have no such right. Certainly, abortion was decriminalized in Canada when our Supreme Court ruled in the R. v. Morgentaler decision (1988), but the judges did not give women a “constitutional right” to abortion.

Yet, in the 43 years since Roe v. Wade pro-lifers in the U.S. have advanced many protections for pre-born children, while in Canada we are closing in on three decades of failure to enact any such legislation. In the past six years alone the US has passed more than 300 pro-life laws!

The Casey decision opened the door to state legislation that regulated the procedure and also protected pre-born children in the latter stages of pregnancy. According to National Right to Life, the oldest and largest pro-life organization in the U.S., 14 states have what are called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection” laws in place. Such laws protect from abortion pre-born children who are capable of feeling pain. Medical evidence demonstrates with certainty that pre-born children are capable of experiencing pain by 20 weeks after fertilization; these laws ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation? In a 2014 letter to The Guardian, Gerard Mitchell, former provincial court judge (1975-77), P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice (1981-1987) and Chief Justice from 1987 until 2008 wrote the following about the Morgentaler decision: “None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Even Madam Justice Wilson, who rendered the most liberal opinion in favour of a right to abortion, advocated an approach to abortion that would balance that right with the state’s interest in protecting the unborn.” [Emphasis added]

The answer to the question, “Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation” (or any legislation that regulates abortion) is not because the science isn’t on our side. And it’s certainly not because our highest court has given Canadian women a right to abortion. Rather, a significant reason why the status quo remains is because of the inertia and fear of politicians to support such legislation in the face of a virtually unchallenged liberal media.

Fetal pain legislation similar to what we’ve seen passed in the U.S. would ban abortion after twenty weeks gestation. While statistics on abortion are difficult to ascertain in Canada, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada estimates there were 104,158 abortions in 2014. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, approximately 2.4% of abortions are procured after 20 weeks gestation. Based on these estimates, we can safely say that 2,500 abortions occur post-twenty weeks gestation every year in Canada. But the reality is we don’t really know.

Fetal pain legislation would not only save lives, it is supported by a majority of Canadians. You don’t need to call yourself pro-life to understand that inflicting pain on a human being is unjust.

In other pages of this issue of Reflections Magazine you will read about the substantive medical evidence that pre-born children experience pain by twenty weeks gestation.

The status quo can be improved on and fetal pain legislation can become a reality in Canada.

The role of the state is to pass laws that restrict evil. Fetal pain legislation could limit the evil of abortion and save the lives of pre-born children. Fetal pain legislation would also raise the cultural awareness of the human rights of the pre-born child. It would put abortion restrictions back into the Criminal Code, thereby sending the message that something is wrong with abortion.

Progressive improvement is better than deferred protection.
_______________________________
This article was written by Mike Schouten, the director for WeNeedaLAW.ca, a public awareness campaign that mobilizes Canadians for the purpose of passing laws that protect pre-born children. It first appeared in Life Canada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted here with permission. 

Sources:
Guttmacher Institute (2016, January 4) 2015 Year-End State Policy Roundup. Retrieved from: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/01/2015-year-end-state-policy-roundup
The 1988 Morgentaler Decision – What the Supreme Court decided. Retrieved from: http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/what-the-court-decided/
Planned Parenthood (2014, January) Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact. Retrieved from: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf
National Right to Life (2016, May 31) Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Retrieved from: http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/stateleg/PCUCPAfactsheet.pdf
We Need a Law – Direction Matters. Retrieved from: https://test.weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf

February 17, 2017

Dear Honourable Maryam Monsef,

Thank you for your continued service to our country in the capacity of Status of Women Minister. As a role model for Canadian women and girls you have an important task and I applaud you for your leadership.

You were recently quoted in a news article in which you stated that, “Reproductive health rights in Canada and around the world are critical to advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We’re committed to making sure that women and girls have that choice, because otherwise, this is a form of gender-based violence.” Gender-based violence is an affront to the dignity of all human beings and I am thankful that the Liberal Party of Canada is taking steps to address it.

My concern, Ms. Monsef, is that there is a form of reproductive choice that is itself gender-based violence.

A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016, and reported on widely by the media, found that abortion is occurring in Canada based solely on the sex of the child. Most often a female fetus was aborted due to a preference for a male child. The study of more than 6 million births across Canada was received with shock and alarm by Canadians across the political spectrum. The news caused Tripat Kaur, Coordinator of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association to say, “Sadly and unfortunately sometimes women don’t have any control…she’s forced to do that [abort her child because it’s a girl]. Prenatal sex-determination tests should be banned.” Amrita Mishra, the Project Coordinator for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association responded by saying, “This problem [sex-selective abortion] is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.”

Ms. Monsef, sex-selective abortion is an affront to the dignity of women and girls; it is gender-based violence. That is why countries around the world are taking steps to protect female fetuses from being discriminated against in such violent manner.

Will you show leadership by bringing Canada into line with every other civilized nation and tackling this form of gender-based violence?

We are requesting a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity to discuss how we address this growing problem of gender-based violence in Canada. Please advise what date works best for your schedule. We can be reached at 1-866-410-9625 or info@test.weneedalaw.ca.

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mike Schouten

Director, WeNeedaLaw.ca

Somerset, a Black slave, was brought from Virginia to England in 1769, by his master, Charles Stewart.  Two years later he escaped.  He was then captured and put on a ship to be transported to Jamaica, there to be sold.  Somerset’s Christian godparents applied to the court for Somerset’s release.

The case attracted a great deal of attention in the press.  Somerset’s lawyers argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law of Parliament recognized the existence of slavery, and slavery was therefore unlawful.  Stewart’s lawyers argued that property was paramount, and that it would be dangerous to free all Blacks in England.  Members of the public donated monies to support the lawyers for both sides of the argument.

Guided in part by the maxim fiat justitia, ruat coelum (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”), Lord Mansfield ruled that since England’s written laws did not clearly permit or establish slavery, Stewart had no legal right to force Somerset to go to Jamaica: “… no master ever was allowed here to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatever.”

Lord Mansfield’s narrow and technical ruling merely stated that British slave owners in England could not force their slaves to be forcibly taken to the colonies.  But this judgment was actually silent about the status of slaves in England.

Lord Mansfield’s judgment had a profound effect on slaves. Many of them misunderstood the ruling to mean that slaves were emancipated in Britain.  Despite Lord Mansfield’s best efforts, the case was reported in the press, and internationally, as ending slavery in England.

After the ruling, numerous newspaper advertisements of the time show that Black slaves continued to be bought and sold in England.  Nevertheless, this court ruling proved to be a boon for the anti-slavery movement.  The perception of there being an “anti-slavery” court ruling, while inaccurate, helped turn public opinion against slavery.  In 1807 Parliament abolished the slave trade, and by 1838 slavery in British colonies was also abolished.

In 21st Century Canada, there is much public confusion about the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Morgentaler, rendered 29 years ago this January 28.  In Morgentaler, five of seven Justices struck down section 251 of the Criminal Code, which allowed abortions only if approved by a Therapeutic Abortion Committee.

Justices Dickson and Lamer held that section 251 was arbitrary and unfair, and did not provide a clear exemption from the criminal law.  Nowhere do they state that there is a constitutional right to abortion.

Justices Beetz and Estey recognized society’s interest in the protection of the unborn child, ruling that Parliament is justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion as to the “life or health” of the pregnant woman in order to protect the state interest in a foetus.

Justice Wilson held that protecting an unborn child is a “perfectly valid legislative objective,” especially during the latter stages of pregnancy, but not in the early stages of pregnancy.

Justices McIntyre and La Forest ruled that “no right of abortion can be found in Canadian law, custom or tradition” or in “the language, structure or history of the constitutional text …or in the history, traditions or underlying philosophies of our society.”  These two Justices also recognized the public interest in the protection of the unborn, and stated that courts must refrain from imposing or creating rights with no identifiable base in the Charter.

In short, the Supreme Court in Morgentaler recognized expressly that Parliament has the right to pass legislation to protect the unborn, with five of seven Justices striking down Section 251 as the wrong way to achieve that legitimate goal.  This muddled and incoherent decision was not a victory for pro-lifers.  However, with the Court inviting Parliament to draft different legislation, this ruling is certainly no victory for pro-choicers.

Nevertheless, abortion supporters have sometimes characterized the Morgentaler ruling as a Canadian version of Roe v. Wade, by which the U.S. Supreme Court did, in fact, create a constitutional right to abortion.  For example, some student unions have claimed that pro-life speech should be banned at universities “because abortion is a constitutional right.”  Leaving aside the fact that a free society allows its citizens to criticize and disagree with the constitution, this claim completely mischaracterizes the Morgentaler decision.

The false notion that R. v. Morgentaler established a constitutional right to abortion can have a very powerful and negative impact in shaping public policy.  If the Canadian public perceives the Morgentaler ruling as a pro-choice victory, this will influence public opinion in favour of abortion being legal.

Those who want to see Parliament pass a law to protect the unborn should not mourn the Morgentaler decision as a victory for their pro-choice opponents.  Doing so helps the pro-choice side.

Instead, pro-lifers should point out that in Morgentaler, the Supreme Court invited Parliament to pass legislation to protect the unborn.

Calgary lawyer John Carpay practices constitutional law.

According to Postmedia News, the unnamed woman was 30 weeks pregnant and decided that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy due to test results showing abnormalities with her soon-to-be-born child. Her lawyer, Jean-Pierre Ménard, said that by the time she finally secured an abortion at the third hospital she visited, she was 35 weeks pregnant. The woman apparently told Montreal’s Le Devoir newspaper, “I didn’t want my child to suffer their whole life.”

Stories like this one are a direct result of negligent lawmakers – from across the political spectrum – who lack the courage to pass laws on this delicate issue, even though they have been instructed to do so by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler decision nearly thirty years ago. Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, who served on the bench at the time and rendered the most liberal opinion of the justices in favour of a legalized abortion, advocated an approach that would balance those rights with the “state’s interest in protecting the unborn.”

This story is not as rare as some make it to be. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada itself estimates that there were over 104,000 abortions in 2014. And the Canadian Institute of Health Information reported that of the abortions for which we know the gestational age (some places refuse to report), 2.4% are done after 20 weeks. That is over 2,500 abortions after 20 weeks gestation!

Because of Parliament’s refusal to act, children are being aborted shortly before birth, simply as a result of adults who deem their lives not worth living. Attempts to create a perfect society by destroying those who are less than perfect leaves all of us vulnerable. The question is not one of perceived ability, but whether the pre-born child is fully human and therefore deserving of the right to life.

Furthermore, to accept fetal abnormalities as a legitimate reason for abortion is to accept that certain people are less valuable than others and their lives are not worth living, that society would be better off without them. This is a dangerous view not only because prenatal testing is so often wrong which would lead one to believe that healthy babies are aborted, but also because it devalues those living with disabilities and is an affront to the dignity and value of the many Canadians who live with special needs as well as those who selflessly care for them. Abortions carried out because of perceived disabilities deprive the world of unique and precious individuals who will have an untold impact on the many lives they touch.

Politicians need to step up and take responsibility for allowing this discrimination; they need to stop viewing pre-born children as a political liability and work towards getting Canada in line with every other democracy in the world. Even countries that are more liberal than Canada have the decency to ensure that the smallest members of the human family are afforded the same protections as the rest of us.

In light of this, Liberal Member of Parliament Mark Gerretsen has introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-243, known as the National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act. If passed, Bill C-243 will allow women to start their maternity benefits 7 weeks sooner if required or recommended. This means she could collect all 15 weeks of her maternity benefits prior to her child being born. This Employment Insurance could then continue into the 35 weeks of parental leave either she or the child’s father is entitled to, for 50 weeks of total income support.

Bill C-243 passed second reading in October 2016, and is one of the rare private member’s bills to be getting strong cross-party support as it moves forward.

Gerretsen’s bill is inspired by the story of Melodie, a welder in his constituency who was advised by her midwife not to continue her current work while pregnant. She approached her employer, who was unable to reassign her to something safer, so she went on sickness EI despite not being sick. This ran out prior to her maternity benefits being able to kick in, and the gap in income support led to her eventually losing her home, despite having “done everything right”, as Gerretsen says.

Conservative MP Gérard Deltell spoke positively of the need for this bill saying, “Men and women alike can do any job there is. However, this leads to situations, in welding for example, where workers are exposed to chemicals or have to do physically demanding work where they have to stand up, bend, stoop, and do other things that might have an impact on a pregnancy. It is obvious that this is a cause for concern. That is why we are in favour of this bill.”

The NDP have also indicated support, although they did find some issues to address. Niki Ashton pointed out that, “When it comes to risky work, the onus is put on the employee, in this case the pregnant woman, rather than on the employer. This could have an adverse effect as employers would not have any incentive in finding risk-free tasks for workers who are pregnant.”

This is certainly a significant weakness of Bill C-243, as is the fact that taking time off prior to her baby’s birth leaves a mother with less time to spend with her child before going back to work, as the total number of weeks of paid leave remain the same. Gerretsen stressed, however, that this is not the intention of the bill. The goal is improved income support for women taking time off for pregnancy and child-rearing. As a private member’s bill, there can be no requirement for funds but, Gerretsen says, “These changes are just a first step and only a partial solution to what I see as a much larger overall problem. Recognizing this, the second part of my bill calls on the Minister of Employment to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that pregnancy is not a barrier to a woman’s full and equal participation in all aspects of the labour force.”

Women’s roles in the workforce have changed dramatically. All parties should recognize the need for a maternity benefit strategy that honors claims to value women’s equality in the workforce, while also honoring a woman’s ability and choice to have children. Improved maternity benefits will allow women to work in their desired field while also making the best possible decisions for their health and the benefit of their families.  Bill C-243 is needed because, as Gerretsen says, “we are behind the ball on this, so to speak. There are other countries that are leading the way.”  It’s time for Canada to catch up, and good to see our representatives cooperating to make that happen.

This article was also published on LifeNews.com.