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.

The Globe and Mail published an interesting piece last week titled, “Finally, a meaningful definition of pro-life.” As though all definitions of pro-life until now have been distinctly absent of meaning, Balkissoon looks at climate change, poverty, and immigration as issues people should care about if they call themselves pro-life.

In what seems a genuine attempt to be thoughtful and nuanced, Balkissoon unfortunately uses an age-old distraction technique, also asking why the pro-life movement doesn’t focus on “ensuring secure housing, good schooling, decent jobs, freedom from violence and a stable environment, especially for women and children.”

This is akin to asking why the local car dealership doesn’t focus on pothole repair and improved road access to remote communities. It is likely that car salesmen believe in good roads and access for remote communities, just as pro-lifers believe in secure housing and freedom from violence for women. But pro-life work, like car salesman work, must be focused.

We focus on life from its earliest stages because a true valuing of life starts when life begins. This value placed on human life extends naturally into many other areas, but here, at the beginning, is where we must work until hearts and minds are changed to understand that you cannot preach “human dignity” while letting stronger humans choose whether weaker humans get to live.

The term “pro-life” has come to be associated specifically with promoting the right of children to be safe in the womb. This is not something the pro-life movement should be ashamed to declare.

Yes, the treatment of all human life should matter to those who call themselves pro-life, and we support all efforts to improve the lives of women in ways that empower them to mother confidently and safely. Naturally, we also have thoughts on immigration, foreign aid, euthanasia, mental health services, and clean drinking water on reserves.

But, more people die every year from abortion than any other cause in North America. Estimates have as many as 1 in 4 pregnancies ending in abortion in Canada. This is not an issue that can be given divided attention. Abortion advocates do not accept the idea that pro-life initiatives after birth are the answer; abortion is the only answer they will accept.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada responded to Balkissoon’s article on their Facebook page with this analysis:

“A thoughtful piece…But, some food for thought.

…Reducing unwanted pregnancies is important, crucial really. But, the idea that if we were all happy/healthy/wealthy we would want to KEEP an unwanted pregnancy is a myth. Some of us simply do not want children, and that is 100% alright.”

THIS is the extremist attitude the pro-life movement counters. This attitude declares it “100% alright” to end a pregnancy for any reason at all, at any time at all, because you are a woman and this is your right. This devalues life at its core. It is a dangerous, vicious ideology that needs to be fought with focused attention that starts at the very beginning.