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 This may not seem like a huge difference, but using outdated data from more than 20 years ago is a sure sign you do not care all that much what the facts are.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.

New York Post journalist Nicole Russell rightly feels disappointed at what “feminism” accomplished last year, and concludes this:

“Now modern feminists wield their gender like a weapon not to create equality but to demand entitlement, not to improve or increase all women’s rights, but only the rights of women with whom they align politically.”

In America, the Women’s March organizers refused to welcome pro-life groups as sponsors after online backlash labelled pro-life groups as anti-women. We saw the political pressure a feminist claim can bring in Canada as well. MP Rachael Harder was held back from a position as Head of the Status of Women Committee when Liberal and NDP MPs – fellow women – judged her unable to adequately represent women since she does not advocate for abortion. Our tax dollars were spent liberally in a “feminist international assistance policy” that focused on access to abortion as a crucial change to be brought to nations who do not even want abortion.

Feminism, as Russell keenly pointed out, is no longer a movement by women for the empowerment of women. It has become a movement of women with a particular, dogged focus on abortion access. Women themselves are told they do not qualify as representatives of their sex, and that they are unwelcome at “feminist” events. Meanwhile, men who toe the line of reproductive freedom at the great cost of pre-born human life are called feminists instead.

When women are no longer willing to consider other women’s voices as valid, they add, whether they want to or not, to a culture that needed #MeToo. The #MeToo movement is rightly about speaking up and eliminating shame, or at least placing that shame squarely where it belongs. Yet the “feminist” term attached to the movement is the same one from the Women’s March that tells other women that their voices are not valid, that they should be quiet and take orders.

Women claiming the banner of feminism are creating a space where political, ideological and star power are used to trample, shame and devalue those who disagree.

Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, writes, “Properly defined, feminism is a philosophy that embraces basic rights for all human beings without exception…. Feminism rejects the use of force to dominate, control or destroy anyone.”

Moving forward into 2018, let’s hold on to this feminism, a feminism that does not need to tear down or destroy in order to feel built up. Let’s advocate for a feminism that doesn’t dominate, but cooperates. This feminism values life in all its stages, even at great personal inconvenience.

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.

As Devorah Gilman says,

“No matter what we think or feel the truth is that none of us are removed from abortion. We all are very, very close. We can act as if abortion doesn’t affect us, but it does. We can pretend that we have the luxury to ignore the issue, but we don’t. While we may have simply ignored, abortion has simply killed. Abortion has killed our fellow countrymen, abortion has killed our neighbors, and abortion has killed our families.”

There are many, many secrets out there and even if we never find out about them we know what abortion does to pre-born babies.

Please join us in speaking the truth in love. Love those who are hurting and share the truth to prevent others from experiencing that hurt.