This illustrates why legislation surrounding the delivery of a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is so important. A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome comes with shock, as the expectations and assumptions of expecting parents are overturned. When you don’t know the person yet, the child can get lost under the diagnosis.The time, support and information given to this couple made such a difference in their experience when they received a prenatal diagnosis halfway through their pregnancy.
This story was generously shared with us by Will & Christina Dokter after they participated in a campaign started by the Down Syndrome Association of Ontario (DSAO). The DSAO is advocating for legislation that would give support and current information to parents faced with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It would also prevent a physician from recommending any medical procedure that perpetuates a negative stereotype of Down syndrome.
If you are an Ontario resident with a connection to the Down syndrome community, consider participating in this campaign by going here.
__________________________________________________________________________
We discovered that our baby boy had a heart defect at his 20-week ultrasound. We were offered non-invasive testing for Down syndrome, which we accepted. The results told us that our son had a 91% chance of being born with Down syndrome. This news was delivered in a neutral tone, with no apology or negativity. We met with the geneticist in London, Ontario, and she was lovely. She told us our son would do everything that typical kids do, just in his own time. She gave us resources and connected us with the local Down syndrome support group. We were told that we had the option to abort, but it was never pushed or even encouraged. We rejected that option immediately and it was never brought up again.
Despite the fact that we are staunchly pro-life, that we believe God has a purpose and a plan, that we loved our unborn son, and that we were connected with support, it was still a scary and stressful time. I had to accept the diagnosis before I was ready to accept the support that came with it. That took a bit of time, and for parents who are scared and vulnerable, a negative word from their doctor is tremendously powerful. I am amazed and appalled at some of the stories I’ve encountered online where parents have to fight to defend the value of their child constantly.
Once I was ready to reach out for help, other parents of little ones with Down syndrome were amazing. They were kind, encouraging and supportive, and they unanimously shared unqualified joy and delight in their special kids. I began to see that having a child with special needs is, in fact, a rare gift. Our son has opened up our eyes to things we didn’t know or see or experience before. He’s teaching his siblings empathy, joy, acceptance, appreciation for small accomplishments, thankfulness, and many other precious things.
He has been an expensive child, from a taxpayer’s perspective. He spent a week in the NICU at birth, 8 days in SickKids having his heart repaired at 5 months, endless weeks in the pediatric critical care unit dealing with complications that arose after his heart repair, and many other tests and appointments. He receives publicly funded therapy weekly, and is on a couple long-term medications which are covered as well. He will need support for the foreseeable future. Perhaps this is one driving force behind the push to terminate these little ones – financially, they’re hard on the system.
But the question is, who determines the value of a life? Do we only get to live if we tip the financial scales the right way? Is this what society is saying? Is it what they want to say?
Our son James is a fully human being, made in the image of God. His life is indescribably valuable. If he were not here, we would have lost the opportunity to learn so many things that only he could teach us. Experiencing life with an extra special person is to be enrolled in a school like no other.
People in the Down syndrome community are the first victims of the current state of affairs, but it is actually all of society that will lose if this continues. The value of human life cannot be measured on contributions, or on chromosomes. Thankfully, our story was one of support and encouragement to parent this child we were given. We want every family given an unexpected prenatal diagnosis to have that same experience.
A story out of New Zealand tells of a school nurse booking a student for an abortion, driving her there during school hours, bringing her home late, and lying about why they were late. A year later, as the girl deteriorated emotionally and physically, it came out to her parents that she had received an abortion. The surgery damaged her uterus and she will now never be able to have a baby.
Any parent reading this story will feel outrage at having a school employee go behind your back to encourage your 15-year-old daughter to get life-changing surgery in secret. But legally, just as in Canada, the school did not have to notify the parents. There was no requirement of parental consent for a minor to have an abortion.
The fact that underage girls in Canada can get an abortion without parental consent or notification means stories like this can happen here too. Parents need to stand up for their right to protect and guide their children. No one should encourage your children to make major life decisions in isolation, or counsel them to hide things from you. As this story shows, parents can be left wondering why their child is struggling, and be unable to provide the best care and support.
We believe parental notification should be ensured before performing an abortion for a minor. Parents are involved in virtually all other medical decisions, and may have valuable information about a child’s medical history. Doctors, school nurses, or private abortion clinic employees should not play counselor and parent to teens in crisis.
A legal opinion prepared on the topic on parental consent for abortion stresses that parents are ultimately responsible for the care and guidance of their children. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child parents have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children, with the best interests of the child being their primary concern. Article 18 indicates that this “best interests” measure includes taking into account a child’s maturity and capacity for decision-making; it does not, however, preclude parental involvement with mature minors.
The fact that a school needs permission to take your child on a field trip, but not for surgery, is beyond ridiculous. That same teen needs parental consent before getting a tattoo or using a tanning salon, and needs legal consent before being allowed to drink, smoke, or drive a car. Has abortion really become such a taboo subject that we are willing to just ignore legal oversights rather than face the wrath of abortion advocates?
Undermining parental authority undermines the best interests of children. It tells parents they don’t need to be involved in their children’s lives, and tells teens not trust their parents for support. If someone can take my child for surgery and I only find out about it later, they can expect to hear from me. I expect they’d hear from you too.
“What are we teaching our adolescents when they find persons in authority willing to help them deceive their parents? What does it teach these adolescents with regard to the respect owed to any adult, least of all a deceitful doctor or a duped parent?”
Intentionally removing a teen’s parent(s) from the decision-making process misleads the teen toward the false notion that parents are nonessential, simply obstructive to the process, and that the teen is completely capable of making mature, wise decisions without the parent’s advice.”
The College of Pediatricians makes it clear that the special secrecy given for abortion needs to end.
“Medical care of children and adolescents uniformly requires written and verbal parental consent for any procedure – inside or outside of a medical office. For example, written parental consent is required for minor children to receive over-the-counter medications when in day care or at school. This is because appropriate medical care can only be provided within the context of the patient’s family and medical history.”
Ignoring medical history and family relationships to accommodate abortion does no one any favours. Recognizing the ongoing development happening in an adolescent’s brain, the paper concludes:
“Legislation mandating or encouraging parental involvement in decisions related to a minor’s pregnancy protects adolescents during a very vulnerable time in their lives. Society recognizes this need, and often requires and encourages parents to be a positive resource for their adolescents in matters of health, and other issues of consequence. Therefore, excluding them from a minor’s decision about abortion cannot be justified.”
You can read the full statement, with supporting sources, here.
We hear a lot about freedom of choice nowadays, including when the topic of abortion is raised. But what if a woman chooses to keep her baby, and pressure from others, be they parents, a boyfriend, or a husband, comes to try to convince her that her choice is wrong? What if the pressure even comes from her family doctor?
In 1993, I went for an appointment with my family doctor to confirm what I basically already knew; that I was expecting a child. Routine, I thought. I already had other children, so I knew the drill. Yes, I was expecting and, after a few calculations, my due date was announced: September 9. I’m thinking, cool, my 35th birthday is my due date! That is where the ‘routine’ ended.
My doctor immediately informed me that, since I was turning 35, he was legally obliged to inform me that I could get amniocentesis to make sure everything was fine with the baby, since the risks of complications increase after the age of 35. While I was aware of the age of increased risk, I answered immediately that I wasn’t interested in amniocentesis. I knew there were risks to the baby to undergo the procedure and, even if there was a problem, I wouldn’t choose do anything about it anyway in terms of aborting the baby. That’s where the pressure started.
It soon became clear that, for this doctor, he wasn’t just informing me of my choices because he had to. He was convinced that I should go ahead with the test and then consider “getting rid of it” if there was a problem. In the end, he seemed frustrated that he couldn’t convince me, then gave me the papers I needed to get an ultrasound. With my first children, ultrasounds were only done if the doctor suspected a problem, or twins, but they had become more common by this time as part of the routine checks.
After my ultrasound, I received an unexpected phone call from my doctor. I will never forget his words. After explaining that the ultrasound showed two suspicious bubbles in the baby’s brain that were often a sign of Down syndrome, he said, “Abortion is the only cure for Down syndrome.” I felt like I’d been hit with a truck…twice! Once with the news from the ultrasound, then again with his declaration that abortion was the only cure.
Shaking, I again told him I would not abort my baby. I was told to think about it, and he would set up an appointment for me with an obstetrician.
My obstetrician appointment was just an amplification of the pressure to abort. I was told I was “in denial”. I was “kidding myself if I thought the baby was okay”. The only “reasonable choice” was to get rid of it. I was asked, “Who would willingly give birth to a handicapped child?” I tried to make it clear that I was not in denial. I wasn’t assuming the baby was fine. I wasn’t being naïve. My baby was a life that needed to be cared for, not killed. My mother’s instinct to protect this defenceless child, no matter what, rose up so strong it was almost overwhelming. This family doctor and this obstetrician weren’t going to get anywhere near my baby.
After discussing the situation with some friends, I was referred to a different doctor who was a Christian, and very much prolife. I still remember him looking at my quite-pregnant state and saying, “How pregnant are you and why don’t you have a doctor?” When I recounted all that had been done and said, he was shocked at the way the two other doctors had pressured me. Here was a doctor that valued life regardless of ability, and who was willing to help me do what I could to prepare myself and my family for whatever this pregnancy might bring. What a difference!
A second ultrasound showed one bubble had disappeared and the other had shrunk. The final outcome was uncertain, but I read all I could about Down syndrome to help me be ready. I even dragged out my old calligraphy set and penned verses 13-14 of Psalm 139, framed them and hung them over the baby’s change table to remind me that this child was also a gift from God, just as my other children had been, and God doesn’t make mistakes.
Two weeks early, ironically not even making it to that fateful 35th birthday, a beautiful baby girl was born. We were prepared to welcome any child with thankfulness and love, and we received, also with thankfulness, a perfectly healthy child. All the concern, all the pressure had been for nothing. I won’t pretend that we were not very relieved that all was well. We all pray for healthy children, both physically and mentally. But, we also all know that that doesn’t always happen, and it is important to recognize that all life is precious and all life is a gift.
When I told my first doctor that I would no longer be his patient, he very smugly asked me to let him know how the baby was after it was born. His attitude was one of ‘you’ll see I was right’, ‘you’ll be wishing you had listened’. Part of me wanted to throw the news of a healthy baby in his face, but would he see that as proof that I hadn’t really wanted a baby with Down syndrome after all? How could I have convinced him that I would have loved this baby the same either way?
When my little girl had her 25th birthday, I sat down at the computer and googled that family doctor’s name. There he was, still practising in the same place all these years later. I typed out a letter to him. I told him that my baby had been born healthy in every way. That she had graduated with honours from university. That she had a beautiful family of her own now. Look what you asked me to kill! Look at the life you so easily dismissed as not worthy of living! And if she had had Down syndrome, who knows what her life would have looked like? But it still would have been a life worth living. How many other potential Down syndrome babies have you ‘cured’ over the years? How much blood is on your hands?
I gave myself a time-out. Made a cup of tea. Came back and deleted the letter. The experience never leaves me. Maybe it would have if I had pushed the send button instead of the delete button.
Do some doctors pressure their patients to get an abortion? Do they make it sound like that is the only option, and even the more loving choice? Yes, without a doubt.
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 call for increased education on abortion is led by a minority of medical students, and abortion activists behind them, who believe that access to abortion is a necessity when it comes to medical care. In fact, abortion as a necessity is a social construct, not a fact of medicine.
And it seems it’s not as hard to destroy life as it is to save life – these apparently untrained family doctors perform the majority of therapeutic abortions in Canada. Presumably it would be of utmost concern if it was discovered, for instance, that most brain surgeons had received zero training in brain surgery. As with most discussions on abortion, however, the media gets stuck on easy access and forgets about protections for women, children, and basic human rights.
To be clear, if doctors are performing abortions, we certainly hope they are well-trained in the procedure, as there is no need for TWO people to die as a result of this “choice.” But the fact remains that well-trained abortion providers are well-trained in the art of killing new life.
It makes good sense that, despite high rates of abortion in Canada, medical schools are not focusing on it in their curriculum. In medical school, with its historical focus on healing and saving lives, the majority of students do not want to study, or specialize in, abortion. Hopefully medical schools will continue to focus on top quality training in life-saving procedures, not bow to political pressure to incorporate life-ending techniques into their definition of medical care.
We want to take the time to thank you for connecting with us, helping out at flag displays or events, emailing your elected representatives, following, sharing, and commenting on social media, and otherwise engaging with our content and work!
Here is a visual glimpse into our year, followed by a list of the Top 10 most-read posts on the website…
Blog Year-in-Review: Top 10 most-read posts of 2018
#9: Ad Standards rules against our billboard
#8: Changing tactics in the pro-life movement
#7: Dr. Jordan Peterson talks about abortion laws
#6: Canadian opinion polls regarding abortion
#5: National Geographic posted an image of a rhino fetus. Instagram commenters responded, and so did we
#4: Guest post: a short story evaluating what “choice” can really look like
#2: International Standards Law information and FAQs
#1: Guest post: Open letter from the mother of a premature child
We are looking forward to working with you in 2019! Together we can achieve full human rights for pre-born children in Canada, and we hope this year is full of momentum and positive steps toward that goal.
]]>In discussing abortion Peterson is clear that it is morally wrong. He calls out politicians for their weak approach to the issue, leaving it in the hands of the courts rather than taking responsibility and action.
It is interesting to see Peterson call for a poll of Canadians to find common ground where abortion regulation can start. Most Canadians, he says, likely do not support abortion at 9 months gestation. It would be simple, he continues, for the government to roll out a variety of legislative propositions and see what people think.
We are already aware from past polls that there is little approval for sex-selective abortion, lack of recognition for pre-born victims of crime, and late-term abortions. This indicates a majority of Canadians do not support the status quo of open access to abortion for any reason.
The majority of democratic nations regulate abortion after the first trimester, and it is this standard which our International Standards Law is modeled after. These regulations include access to counseling and waiting periods, to ensure women are not coerced or pressured, and are giving fully informed consent. Comprehensive polling and legislative propositions from the government would be a bold move, an indication that they are willing to tackle this issue head-on and find common ground to build on.
Free speech is very much at stake in Canada, and the pro-life movement is a popular target. Bubble zones are being implemented around abortion clinics, preventing positive pro-life messages from reaching women seeking abortions. Advertisements are being judged inaccurate and demeaning despite conveying truth. It is more important than ever that we refuse to be silenced. Instead, we must continue to speak up, to seek common ground with our fellow Canadians, and to take steps that will protect the most vulnerable members of the human family.
The whole interview is very interesting, but you can start around 27 minutes to catch his thoughts on abortion.
]]>This beautiful story comes from the Love Out Loud campaign, which celebrates motherhood in all its forms. The campaign has at its heart the message Cara defines this way: “As moms we have different journeys, but the one thing we share in common is the unconditional love we have for our children.”
Motherhood is a unique journey for every woman who walks it. Perfect families don’t happen unless we adjust our ideas of what perfect can look like.
As this story shows, how we speak and act as a society can also impact how supported or scared women feel facing motherhood, especially when their child is given a prenatal diagnosis that shakes their world. We can react to a difficult diagnosis by turning to abortion, or we can face it with love for life, even when that life may look different than we had envisioned.
Cara in this video states that her work as an ER nurse has taught her that “no one is promised tomorrow.” So let’s fight for them have the right to fully live their todays.
Please share on social media, and if you’re interested in receiving some hard copies to share with your community, fill in our contact form or email us at info@test.weneedalaw.ca.
Thank you for your continued support in spreading the word about the hard facts of abortion in Canada. These numbers remind us once again how important this work is, and how far we have to go.
]]>