It all started when the government realized that groups like the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) were using the program to fund summer internships. CCBR’s summer interns were trained in pro-life apologetics to shed light on the reality of abortion, and to persuade Canadians to recognize human rights for pre-born children. In 2017, the government decided to refuse their application. However, they did not have a justifiable reason for doing so and ended up paying CCBR in a legal settlement.
The government then decided to create a reason for rejecting applications like CCBR’s. Enter the infamous 2018 application requiring all applicants to attest that they respect “reproductive rights”. Whether they intended it or not, this new attestation not only prevented pro-life groups from applying, but also impacted soup kitchens, camps, schools and many other applicants who found the attestation to be against their consciences.
The backlash against the attestation was strong from all sides, with most major media outlets criticizing the way the attestation flouted the Charter guarantees of freedom of belief and expression. Many Canadians objected on the grounds of denying applicants based on their personal convictions. Whether they were pro-life or not, they didn’t want the government creating an ideological screening test for programs.
The government tried to convince us that it was not an ideological test, and to assure religious Canadians that it was indeed not against their conscience to attest that they respect abortion. However, they found that Canadians did not readily allow the government to dictate what does and does not go against their conscience. Many did not apply for the program, and over 1,500 applications were submitted without the appropriate box checked, and were denied funding.
The 2019 application
Whether for political expediency, fear of a lawsuit, or because they honestly only meant to block pro-life organizations, the government in December reassessed and revised the summer jobs application. Rather than an attestation requiring respect for “reproductive rights”, the government now lists activities that are ineligible for funds. On the ineligible list are activities that “weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services,” which they definitively clarify as including abortion.
If you’re considering applying for funding, I refer you to the Canadian Council of Christian Charities’ analysis. As a more general analysis, I want to point out two improvements to the 2019 application.
#1: There is no mention of “reproductive rights”. Whether it was because of the outcry from religious stakeholders across Canada, the media’s scrutiny, or MP Ted Falk’s interjection in the House of Commons that “It’s not a right”, the language of “reproductive rights” is gone. While they have yet to recognize abortion as a human rights violation, it is encouraging to see the revised language that removes the reference to the made-up misnomer “reproductive rights”.
It is disheartening to see them perpetuate the myth of abortion as a health service, but at least they have the legal classification correct this time.
#2: No one is being asked to attest that they respect abortion. This is a fantastic development. Whether applicants are pro-life or pro-choice, religious or secular, it is better that they do not have to attest that they respect abortion. For those who checked the box, whatever their views previously, that attestation has an impact on them and their view of abortion. It helps cement the idea of abortion as a legal right and something positive. It is good news that applicants are no longer being compelled to say they respect abortion.
This is still about the pro-life movement
The combined benefits of the changes make it likely that many who were blocked by the previous attestation may access the program this year. But don’t forget how this all started, and what this is all about. This is about the pro-life movement. This is about blocking groups like CCBR, and pregnancy care centres, from accessing these funds, because this government does not like their pro-life views.
I’m happy to point out the positive changes in the new attestation, but it in no way assuages my concerns. The government is still trying to block those seeking to educate Canadians about human rights, fetal development, and the need for Canadians to care about this injustice. The government is still trying to block those seeking to come alongside women facing unplanned pregnancy, counsel them, and assist them in choosing life for their pre-born child.
This is still not ok. Write to your MP today and ask them to stop excluding pro-life organizations from the Canada summer jobs program.
]]>
What the decision said
The five-judge majority decided that this law infringed freedom to speech. Just because this infringement took place in a professional or regulated context did not lessen the protection accorded by this right. The majority recognized the importance of preventing government control over the messages of doctors, affirming the importance of conscience rights for physicians.
The judges also pointed out flaws in the law itself. California claimed that this law was about informing low-income women about health services offered by the state. However, the required notice was “wildly underinclusive” in that it basically only applied to pro-life pregnancy centers, excluding other types of clinics that also serve low-income women. If informing low-income women about health services was California’s aim, the government could advertise without imposing this burden on pregnancy care centers. The ruling concluded by noting that this decision is not a blanket protection against all disclosure requirements for pregnancy care centers, but legally valid requirements will need to be “better supported or less burdensome” than the law in question.
What’s the difference between abortion & pregnancy care?
The point I want to spend time on is the comparison of this California law with informed consent laws, which both the U.S. and Canada uphold in some form. These laws require physicians to ensure women are fully informed as to what to expect when they request an abortion. This may require the physician to explain the gestational age of the fetus, what the abortion procedure is actually like, potential side effects, or about the availability of adoption as an option. The laws requiring informed consent have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
As the four-judge dissent in the pregnancy care centre case argued: “If a State can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare about childbirth and abortion services?”
The first problem with this comparison is, as the majority pointed out, the informed consent laws relate to a specific procedure – in this case abortion – not to a doctor’s practice generally. This California law attempted to dictate disclosure even before a medical counselor met a pregnant woman, let alone provided her any service or offered any advice. It would be comparable to doctors being required to have notices displayed in their office saying heart bypass surgeries are available. It’s a fact, but hardly a necessary one to display prominently.
This leads to the second and more serious problem with this argument. The dissent suggests the notice was necessary because of the risks associated with pregnancy. While they admit there are risks associated with abortion, they argue that “‘childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in’ the woman’s death.”
This blatantly ignores that abortion is considerably more than 14 times more likely than childbirth to result in the pre-born child’s death.
Pro-abortion advocates attempt to paint abortion as healthcare – healthcare that is maybe even safer than pregnancy and childbirth. Healthcare, by definition, attempts to restore or preserve health. This means abortion advocates end up painting pregnancy as a lack of health, or a threat to women’s health.
This view of pregnancy does not respect or value the pre-born child and their humanity, and it also denigrates women. Nancy Pearcey, in her book Love Thy Body, addresses this attitude: “It does not treat women’s ability to gestate and bear children as a wondrous and awesome capacity but as a liability, a disadvantage, a disability. It does not value and protect women in their childbearing capacity but seeks to suppress women’s bodily function using toxic chemicals and deadly devices to violently destroy the life inside her.”
Pregnancy is not a disease. The pre-born child is not a tumor. Rather, pregnancy marks the wondrous beginning of a human being’s life. Thankfully, pregnancy care centres with this positive view of women and pregnancy are able to continue their good work in California with clear consciences.
This post is written by Tabitha Ewert, legal counsel for We Need a Law.
On March 20th the United States Supreme Court heard arguments about whether pregnancy centers can be forced to publish information about abortion. The California law in this case requires pregnancy centers to display a notice in both their facilities and their advertisements stating that abortion is publicly funded, along with a number to call.
California’s attorneys claim this law is just about accurately informing patients. It’s even called the Reproductive FACT Act (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency). Proponents of this law claim it is necessary to protect women from hypothetical “deceitful” centers. They claim there is no harm caused by forcing clinics to display the facts.
Beyond the content of the required disclosure, this is a burdensome law. It doesn’t just require having the information available for clients, but every facility and every advertisement (whether in print or online) must display the 29-word prescribed statement. Even a pregnancy center billboard that simply said “Choose Life” would have to include the disclosure.
Change the scenario to a law requiring a vegan restaurant to advertise where to get hamburgers, or a Catholic church having to post a sign saying that the Jehovah’s Witness temple down the street also provides spiritual services. It may be factual, but the fact that the sign is there would certainly be read as an endorsement.
One question the US Supreme Court wrestled with during the hearing is the purpose of this law and California’s alternatives. If this law is designed to prevent pregnancy centers from deceitful practices, why don’t anti-fraud laws suffice? If it is merely to inform women about the availability of abortion, why can’t the government find other means? As Justice Gorsuch pointed out, this law allows the government a free-ride by compelling private actors to provide information on their behalf. If the government wants to advertise their services, surely they can find a way to do so without compelling pregnancy centers to bear the costs.
The Californian government, in response, relied on the analogy to other laws requiring disclosure by doctors that may discourage a woman from having an abortion. These informed consent laws have been upheld by the US Supreme Court. If a state can compel an abortionist to show a woman her ultrasound or tell her about the availability of adoption, why shouldn’t pregnancy centers be held to the same standard?
There are two ways to distinguish between these types of laws. First, an abortion doctor is about to perform an invasive medical procedure, one that is not reversible. There should be a higher burden placed on physicians informing women in that scenario than on centers who are, at most, providing ultrasounds that aid a woman in her decision making.
Secondly, an abortionist does not think it is morally wrong for a woman to give birth. The term “pro-choice” indicates that abortion is a morally acceptable choice. The abortionist is only there to help carry out one of several permissible choices.
For a pro-life pregnancy center, however, there is one choice that is morally unacceptable. Based on the understanding that pre-born humans deserve human rights, pregnancy centers understand abortion to be a human rights violation. They cannot in good conscience advertise for the abuse of human rights.
And this gets to the crux of the cultural issue. Pregnancy centers are being characterized as places meant to mislead or harass women. What is actually meant by these accusations is that pregnancy centers will not recommend or refer for abortions. It is against their purpose to do so.
We have pregnancy centers because, amid this ongoing legal, political, and cultural discussion about abortion, pro-lifers saw a way of helping women choose life. Women facing an unplanned pregnancy are often in need of financial support, education, or maybe just a friendly face. In a culture that increasingly views abortion as the answer to unplanned pregnancies, these centers offer a different way. They are largely run by volunteers and funded by generous donors who want to help women and their children.
Pregnancy centers offer a range of services and resources which may include pregnancy tests, education about parenting, baby clothes and diapers. Volunteers sit down and talk with pregnant mothers. They can offer confidential help, including information about the community resources that are available to support her in her choice for life. They can discuss women’s options, including explaining pregnancy and childbirth. They may explain the abortion procedure and the availability of post-abortive counseling.
Pregnancy centers cannot force a woman to make a specific choice, but they outline the consequences of each choice and encourage women to choose life. They do so because they are pro-life. Pro-life for the child and the mother. They know abortion ends the life of pre-born children and hurts women. They are not neutral on this. How can they be?
California can argue that this law only mandates that centers provide factual information, but what they are really doing is forcing pregnancy centers to advertise abortion. This fact goes to the core of what a pregnancy center is and undermines their very purpose.
While each clinic has its own website and slight variations on the FAQs, a brief perusal of the Morgentaler clinic website turns up enough talking points for several articles. Mentioning only a few will give a clear picture of whose best interests the clinic really has in mind.
It is repeatedly mentioned that the actual abortion procedure takes only 5-10 minutes, while the appointment can be expected to take 2-3 hours. “Counselling, ultrasound and a doctor’s exam are usually done in the same visit as your abortion, so you’ll only need to come to our clinic once.” How accommodating, you might think. But if your counselling, ultrasound and doctor’s exam are to be done prior to prepping for and carrying out your procedure, plus we add the 30+ minutes of recovery time before they send you on your way with an empty uterus and still-dilated cervix, how thorough do you think those steps are?
At an abortion clinic, the counselling is geared to one end goal: abortion. You’re here now, we don’t want to re-book you, let’s move this along.
The website goes on to say, “It’s important for you to have reliable and accurate information.” Agreed. Yet the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ page assures potential clients that there is “no research or statistical data to support the belief that having more than one abortion will damage or affect fertility.” No mention is made of the increased risk of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, potential scarring from the procedure, or other side effects that could indeed affect future fertility. Certainly, these complications are rare, but reliable and accurate information means giving the whole truth, not the best version of the truth.
Statistics Canada is then referenced on the website with the assurance that fewer than 1% of abortions results in any complication – this is based on data from 1995. Data from 2015 indicate over 2% of abortions have complications. This may not seem like a huge difference, but using outdated data from more than 20 years ago is a sure sign you do not care all that much what the facts are.
Under the “About Us” section of the website is the slogan, “Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child.” There is clearly an understanding here that they are dealing daily with mothers and children, yet there is a callous lack of care for those lives. Instead, there is flippant, condescending advice such as that given for recovery: “Like most women, you’ll probably feel much better after a light meal.” This brings to mind images of a woman crying in a bucket of ice cream after a bad breakup, as if that will make her feel better.
The general trivializing of the abortion experience contrasts starkly with legal efforts to ensure conflicting opinions are kept at a distance. The Ottawa Morgentaler Clinic recently successfully pushed the Ontario government to enact “bubble zone” legislation so that those who oppose abortion will be banned from expressing that view too close to the clinic.
There is a clear recognition, if a failure to admit, that abortion is more than a quick procedure to have done on your day off, like seeing the dentist. (The repeated referral to the suction tool for emptying the uterus as “much like a dental suction hose” reinforces this feeling of casual flippancy.)
Abortion clinics do not care for women. Rather, the only service they offer is abortion. The questions and answers they provide focus solely on what abortion feels like, what it will cost, how long it will take, what you should wear, and what comfort food to eat after your baby has been removed from your uterus.
Pregnancy care centres, on the other hand, have websites that declare their compassion, concern, and genuine care for women. Is it any wonder Google results continue to favour these places, where close to 99% of clients rank themselves as very satisfied with their experience? A quick scan of an abortion clinic’s website shows a utilitarian ethic focused on efficiency and lack of emotionality. Pregnancy care centers give time, resources, and space for emotion. Only one of these organizations can really be called pro-woman.
]]>