Abortion provides a bandage solution for problems like intimate partner violence, sexual abuse, lack of social supports, poverty, and myriad other issues our leaders should be focused on. If we advocate for life, we can also call on our leaders to address these related issues. If we call for death as a solution in any area, we can have no basis for an expectation that they will improve standards of living across our nation.
Yes, I agree with Prasad’s premise that health care services should be accessible to all, not just those lucky enough to live in the right place. But abortion is not healthcare. Healthcare seeks to heal, treat or prevent disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and when serious complications arise there are always options that care for both mother and child. Delivering a baby alive to save a mother’s life, even if it may not survive, is inherently different than killing that pre-born child before removing it from the womb.
Yes, abortion access is spotty across Canada. But so is actual healthcare. If your appendix bursts in Northern Ontario, or you suffer a stroke in rural Saskatchewan, your medical care access is not going to be the same as it would in a major city centre. Abortion should be the least of our concerns – barring labour, pregnancy is about the safest medical condition one can have if you’re worried about getting to the doctor while the symptoms are still present. Framing abortion as a healthcare issue is an attempt to mask the fact that this is a human rights issue.
Prasad states that “abortion remains one of, if not the most stigmatized essential health service in Canada. While the 1988 Supreme Court ruling should have settled that abortion be treated like any other medical procedure, our lack of progress shows how thorny of an issue it still is.” But the Supreme Court ruling never intended to settle the issue. Rather, even the most liberal of the judges wrote that the pre-born child should be given protection at some stage. It left the law-making to Parliament, as is the Court’s place. It is only Parliament’s inaction and cowardice that has left us the only democracy in the world without restrictions on abortion.
The abortion debate is open, it always has been. The majority of Canadians support limits on abortion, and always have. But the status quo brought about by fearful lawmakers means the womb is a uniquely dangerous place to be in Canada. In the womb, we have human beings not considered persons under the law. It is the only place a human being has no legal protection, but is left completely at the mercy of someone bigger and stronger than themselves. We want leaders who will advocate tirelessly for the vulnerable and voiceless, not throw them under the political bus.
]]>
This weekend, we had the honour of planting 100,000 flags on the lawn of the Supreme Court of Canada to draw attention to the ongoing injustice of abortion in Canada. The sea of pink and blue flags is a humbling and sobering experience, as we consider that each flag represents one pre-born child whose life was taken, unprotected by our law. It is also a valuable opportunity to make visible those our society would like to forget.
We chose the Supreme Court location for the display because this is the court that struck down Canada’s abortion law in the 1988 Morgentaler ruling. This is also the Court that looked to Parliament to create a new law protecting “fetal interests,” or pre-born human rights. Parliament has failed to do that. This display and location gave a wonderful starting point for conversations, as we explained to people what happened at the Court and could then literally point to Parliament, within view, as we talked about the laws we would like to see enacted.
The far-reaching and devasting impact of abortion was evident on Saturday, as those going by somberly considered this ongoing injustice in Canada. This included one young couple who asked to plant their own flags. It also included one young woman who talked about being the daughter of a sexual assault survivor.
It was a beautiful opportunity to see hearts and minds changed about the status quo on abortion. So many people we talked to were unaware that Canada has no law restricting abortion, and our conversations affirmed polls, which say the majority of Canadians support some restrictions on abortion.
More than 60 volunteers joined us from various parts of Ontario to plant the pink and blue flags (truth be told, we didn’t fit the full 100,000 flags on that lawn and had to keep some in the boxes – that alone is a sad testimony to just how many lives have been taken). Many stayed all day to engage with their fellow Canadians on the issue of abortion, and help with clean up at the end of the day.
In Canada, we consistently see our leaders try to shut down debate about abortion and the humanity of the pre-born. But our experience continues to be that most Canadians are open to the discussion in a way our leaders are not. Our lack of laws is not reflective of Canadians, but is due to Parliament’s inaction. For this reason, we continue to talk to Canadians and to visibly display the massive number of lives lost to abortion each year.
Of course, it is also true that many elected lawmakers view pre-born children as a political liability and this has most certainly contributed to a thirty-year void when it comes to regulating abortion in Canada. But we do need to acknowledge that the pro-life movement carries some of the responsibility for the political failures in the past three decades. Yet, in the six years our organization has been active, we see plenty of reason for hope!
Breakenridge asserts that
“[t]he pro-life movement seems to be holding out for an unattainable goal of classifying abortion as murder and ending it altogether, rather than focusing on a much more reasonable and attainable goal of reducing the number of abortions.
While polls show that most Canadians support a woman’s right to choose, it doesn’t mean that Canadians are enthusiastically pro-abortion. A goal of a lower abortion rate would have a fairly broad appeal and support. And it’s one the pro-life movement will never embrace.”
With these two short paragraphs Breakenridge shows he is dead wrong.
A growing part of the pro-life movement recognizes that the all-or-nothing approach has resulted in exactly that – nothing. New, young, politically-motivated pro-lifers are embracing opportunities to reduce the abortion rate. Our organization, We Need a Law, advocates for incremental laws that focus on the common ground the majority of Canadians stand on in this debate. We understand that it’s better to save some than none.
By working on bills that, at the very least, would bring Canada into line with nearly every other democracy in the world when it comes to regulating abortion, we are focusing on prudence, wisdom, and a heartfelt desire to protect as many pre-born children as we can. Even if these bills do not pass the first time around polls indicate that there is a broad base of support for some abortion regulations. For example, banning sex-selective abortion, which typically targets girls, would have support from more than 90% of Canadians. We also believe, with the majority of Canadians, that pre-born children who are killed in an act of violent crime, such as murder or assault of the mother, should be viewed as victims. Another area we focus is the gestational age at which abortion can no longer occur. Approximately 80% of Canadians mistakenly believe we have law that prohibits late-term abortion, and are shocked to discover abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.
We have studied abortion laws in other countries and are inspired by democratic nations similar to ours such as Germany, France and Spain. These, and many others, limit abortion to the first trimester, and offer counseling and time for a woman to make the challenging decision about abortion.
We hear over and over again how many women felt like abortion was their “only choice” – that’s not a choice at all, and something the pro-abortion movement should be equally concerned about. We all care about women. The difference is that pro-lifers also care about children.
On May 10, 2018, thousands of Canadians are gathered in Ottawa to show how much pre-born human rights matter to them. Men, women and children, young and old, take time out of their lives because they care deeply about the lives of others.
It’s sad that we’ve had to do this for so many years, but the fact that so many people show up to the March for Life every single year shows that we’re committed to never giving up. This is something that matters too much.
The March for Life is one of the largest marches that happens in Canada annually, and it’s always encouraging to see so many pro-lifers gathered in one place. Obviously, human rights matter to a lot of people, and we hope all Canadians will consider why Canada is the only country in the world with zero regulations surrounding the procedure of abortion. Canadians need to consider whether they are actually okay with the status quo. Polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians are unaware of our lack of abortion regulations. When asked directly, the majority supports some legal restriction on abortion.
We advocate for laws that begin to get Canada in line with international guidelines. For example, limiting abortion in some cases, such as banning sex-selective abortions and ending abortions after the first trimester, would be similar to countries like Germany, France and Spain. We also promote informed consent and laws that recognize pre-born children as victims if their mother is killed as a result of violent crime.
All of these steps are building blocks in changing hearts and minds as Canadians find they support these types of regulations. Supporting these first steps indicates an awareness of the humanity of pre-born children, a humanity that we ultimately hope will be honoured with full human rights.
Canadians need to know the status quo, but they also need to know why it is unacceptable. By working together, the pro-life movement can make abortion not just illegal, but unthinkable.
The right to life and the need for change in Canada: these are why we march.
Women are told that abortion serves them, and many have been convinced. We are told this, however, by a culture built for men, where having children is a financial, social and occupational drawback. A recent article in the Huffington Post states, “A woman-friendly world should be able to accommodate women’s fertility.” Abortion is promoted because we have not found a way to truly celebrate women and accommodate one of the things that makes them unique.
Men are pro-abortion because it serves their desire for sex without responsibility or repercussion. Women may want the same lack of responsibility with sex, but no woman wants an abortion. It is not something we grow up hoping for, something we admire in others, or something we are open about sharing if it does happen.
To the women who buy into the propaganda that abortion is about women’s rights and women’s control, you have been duped. Abortion serves men, particularly unfaithful, incestuous, selfish and aggressive men, infinitely more than it serves women, and it always will.
While the videos were filmed, released, and directed at the United States, there are some valuable lessons in there for Canadians too. How did videos showing people talking casually about dismembering babies, dropping eyeballs, and selling fetal body parts for profit fail to convince people to take action?
It’s not that people don’t care. We saw in the recent case of Charlie Gard just how much people can care. And what they care about, in both cases, is choice. The public got up in arms when it appeared the parents did not have control over choices relating to Charlie’s care. Whether they cared about Charlie himself is another question. Similarly, in the abortion debate, the discussion is focused firmly on parental (in this case maternal) rights. The language is one of choice and control, and it seems we’ve sometimes forgotten the subject: a child whose life hangs in the balance.
The resolute grip on personal choice frames many of our cultural debates. When it comes to the Planned Parenthood videos released by CMP, we shouldn’t have expected a public who seems immune to the injustice of abortion to have cared particularly much about what happens to the remains of those unwanted children.
Facts are not what ultimately changes people’s minds. In this social media world, it is easy to share things, but it is just as easy for others to ignore those things. Abortion, legal or not, still comes down to a question of the heart and, often, to personal experience.
In discussing the case of Charlie Gard, Professor Uta Frith from the University College London pointed out the need for a balance between science and emotion. When it comes to hot button issues like whether to remove your child from life support after birth or whether to cut off their life support before birth, emotion always wins over reason. Emotion, Frith said, “is utterly certain.” It follows, then, that “[r]easoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people.”
What we need are not more facts or exposé videos. We need one-on-one conversations, small group discussion, school presentations, and any other form of personal interaction and engagement.
Within the pro-life movement, we need collaboration and mutual support. The job of the pro-life movement is simply to exist and never, ever give up. One person at a time, one heart at a time, progress will be made.
]]>
As we approach our 150th birthday this summer, we shouldn’t be resting on the laurels of a renowned human rights record. Instead, we should be engaged in serious reflection and self-examination. How can we do better?
The number one way in which we can do better is in relation to our most vulnerable. Pre-born babies continue to be discarded by the tens of thousands every year. Politicians are scared of the topic – Liberals because they could lose their jobs if they talk about it, Conservatives because they’re told they may not get the job if they talk too much about it.
In our apparent attempt to maintain an international reputation as tolerant, progressive, and accommodating, we have ended up with special interest rights trumping human rights. “Reproductive rights” have somehow trumped the right to life, and suggesting that human rights should trump women’s rights is not going to win me any popularity contests.
It is only a matter of time, however, before everyone has to admit that the emperor has no clothes. Science has never been clearer regarding the intricate humanity of life in the womb. The pre-born child is unequivocally a separate, living human being. It is dependent on its mother, yes, as is a newborn or toddler. Also like a newborn or toddler, the pre-born child has its own DNA, and can even be operated on separately from the mother.
In the blur of plummeting birth rates and newfound sexual freedom that came with widely available birth control, we as women somehow came to believe that we were the masters of conception. Not one of us would ever again have a child against her will; we would decide whether life lived or died within us. This belief led us to fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that pregnancy might just be something we couldn’t always control, and we’ve managed to convince a lot of women to cling to that control regardless of the consequences. By doing so, we’ve also allowed men to step back from responsibility, to expect control, and to turn a blind eye to consequences.
The rights to life, liberty and security of the person were matters of life and death to our forefathers. They founded our nation on these values because these values mean something. We cannot be casual about these terms, or the associated implication that human rights trump individual rights. The right to life, the primary human right, is violated every moment that abortion remains legal in Canada. We need to stand up and say this is not about bodily autonomy or fighting patriarchy, this is about life. So women, men and children from all ages and stages of life, all backgrounds, all with their own stories, beliefs, and reasons for being there, will march. We march for, and stand for, the right to life for all members of the human family.
]]>
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.
]]>Dear Pro-Life Allies,
Please feel free to forward this information to your contacts.
The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons is currently conducting a consultation on a new policy on Conscientious Objection. Three organizations have submitted a letter, legal brief and proposed revisions to the policy. Please take a minute to ask the College to support the amendments of the three organizations. Your vote of support will help. The deadline for submissions is August 7.
The College web page can be found here – see CPSS consultation on the right side of their website. http://www.cps.sk.ca
The documents can be found here cmdscanada.org
Our concerns are:
1. The draft policy requires physicians to “make arrangements” for the patient to see another physician for information about a controversial procedure, or for the procedure itself (abortion, contraception, etc) Making arrangements has the same moral implications as a referral. Future councils could interpret the phrase “make arrangements” to be the same as referral.
2. The draft policy requires physicians to perform controversial procedures in certain circumstances. Reference to the “well being” of the patient has led to concerns that the policy might be used to force physicians to perform euthanasia.
3. Whatever parameters are agreed upon in this policy are likely to follow through to the new assisted death policy.
The three participating organizations are:
- Canadian Physicians for Life
- Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies
- Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada
- I support the revisions to the policy proposed by CPL, CFCPS and CMDS
- There is no reason to take away conscience protection to ensure patient access.
Suggested comments:
Include your name
(Obviously the more personalized you make it the better.)
Please pray for the success of this endeavour.
Thanks
Larry
Larry Worthen BA, MA (Th.), LLB
Executive Director
Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada
]]>
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.
]]>