_____________________________________________________________________________
Story #1: More than we bargained for
Catherine showed Andrew the pregnancy test. There was a glow in her cheeks that showed only a fraction of the joy that was coursing through her. After being together for ten years, countless doctors appointments, various medications, and still being disappointed every month, Catherine and Andrew had finally decided to try IVF. The doctor had explained the process in a friendly but serious manner, going over the success rates.
“We will transfer three embryos into your uterus,” he had explained. “That way we improve the likelihood that at least one will implant itself there.” Catherine nodded, determined. She wanted a child.
The joy Andrew felt was only surpassed by his relief. Relief that it had succeeded. Catherine’s joy was all encompassing. Even that first day she began to speak to her child, despite knowing that the child couldn’t hear yet. This child was going to complete their family, going to complete her life. Nothing could lessen her joy.
The unabated joy, however, was sidelined by shock as Catherine lay on the table staring at the ultrasound screen. As she looked at her child, a mixture of emotions that she couldn’t even begin to describe took hold of heart. It was not just her child that she saw, it was her children. Three children to be precise. Every single one of the embryos had successfully implanted in her uterus. She looked over at Andrew, but he just stared at the screen.
When the doctor began to talk to them the shock had still not worn off. Catherine had wanted a child, but triplets? How could she possibly manage that?
“Each of the fetuses is healthy,” the doctor explained. “Of course, a multi-fetal pregnancy always comes with risks, for both you and the fetuses.” He gestured at Catherine. “We should discuss your options.”
“Options?” asked Andrew.
“Yes. We can, of course, reduce the pregnancy.”
“Reduce the pregnancy?” Andrew asked, uncomprehending.
“Yes, terminate one or two of the fetuses. You can also choose not to do so, in which case we will have to discuss how to monitor the pregnancy. With triplets come an increased risk of serious complications, including preterm labour and premature birth, which can have lasting consequences for the children.”
Andrew suddenly understood what was being implied and he looked at Catherine. “Reducing the pregnancy makes sense to me,” he said. “We aren’t ready for three anyway. It might make sense to keep two – who knows if we will ever get pregnant again, but three is just too much. Don’t you agree?”
Catherine didn’t respond right away. Shock still gripped her. She looked down at her stomach – not that there was anything to see there yet. But there would be soon. Triplets. Three babies. Inside her. And then she would have to give birth to them. And then she would have to care for them for the rest of her life. Fear was slowly replacing the shock.
“If we just reduce the pregnancy,” Andrew was saying, repeating the phrase he had only just learned. “We could see if we can have a boy and a girl. A perfect little family of four.”
Twins I can do, she thought. “Yeah, a boy and a girl would be perfect. What a gift that we can get two children instead of the one we were hoping for. That would be perfect.”
Andrew and Catherine went home to sleep on it, and decided to find out the sex of the babies she carried. Two girls and one boy. They talked, they cried, and then they agreed – a boy and a girl would be perfect. When they returned to the doctor, they were sure.
“Let’s reduce the pregnancy.”
And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.
Story #2: Plenty of girls
Janine was putting together the finishing touches on her middle daughter’s costume. Just that morning, Annaliese had announced that she wanted to go trick-or-treating as an octopus. Despite searching every costume and thrift store in their small town, there was no octopus costume to be found. The look of disappointment on Annaliese’s face grew as they went to store after store, finding a princess dress for Sarah and a Batgirl outfit for Ellie. “What about a turtle?” Janine had asked her 6-year-old. Annaliese hadn’t said anything, but tears filled her eyes. Janine was not one to spoil her three girls, but her hearts strings were pulled. She loved her daughters dearly and wanted them to see the world for all the possibilities it had for women.
“Maybe we can be resourceful.” Janine said. “Let’s see if we can figure out how to make an octopus costume.” Annaliese was enthralled and they spent the rest of the day looking up patterns and finding the material they needed. Janine was proud of her daughter. She had worked hard and carefully all day. All that was left for Janine to do after her daughters were in bed was the finishing touches.
As she looked with satisfaction at the 8-legged costume, she heard the front door open as her husband Spencer arrived home from work. He was up for a promotion that kept him at the office longer these days. The costume was laid aside as another more serious topic took over her mind. Janine was unsure whether the wave of nausea she felt was the morning sickness or the dread of the conversation she intended to have.
Spencer was pulling food out of the fridge when she walked into the kitchen. She sat at the island as he turned to her.
“I found out today that it’s a girl,” Janine said. Spencer didn’t react right away, but Janine knew he must be feeling disappointment. He loved his daughters, she knew, but he had wanted a son. He had wanted someone to play catch with, to take fishing, and to carry on his name. Spencer would never have voiced this, but Janine knew. She knew, because she had wanted that to.
“So, a family of four girls,” he finally said.
“Well,” Janine said. “I was thinking about it. This isn’t a great time to have another child anyway. With you up for the promotion and working so much, maybe it would work better to wait. Three children is already a lot – wouldn’t it be better if we are going to have a fourth that we try again for a boy?”
Spencer pondered this for a moment. “It’s not too late?” he asked.
“I can still have it done at the clinic,” she responded. “And we haven’t told the girls yet so there won’t be any questions from them. The only people who know are our parents and we can just say it was miscarriage.”
Spencer nodded. “Ok. And when the timing’s better, we can try again for a boy.”
And a girl lost her life because she was a girl.
The stories themselves do not always overtly show the misogyny in sex selection – the stories are not all filled with women-hating men coercing their wives into abortions every time they’re pregnant with a girl. Yet, in a country that claims to to value equality of the sexes, evidence has been found that a cultural valuing of males in some communities means girls are overwhelmingly targeted for abortion, especially if the family already has girls. Countries like China and India are dealing with this problem on wide-spread scale, but this is also a Canadian problem.
New assisted reproductive technologies have also made multiple pregnancies more likely, and those who practice these types of medicine look for ways to build a designer family and reduce potential risk. Sadly, “risk” in these case is too often a pre-born child.
If we say that equality of the sexes is important to us as Canadians, we need to back that up with laws that recognize their equal value from the earliest stages. Life is meant to be lived, not controlled. When we focus on designing our families to perfection, we will target those who do not fit our mold, be it based on sex, potential disability, or anything else. If we allow this kind of selection in the womb, that kind of thinking will impact our treatment of born human beings as well. We need a law that bans sex selection abortion, and everything it stands for.
]]>
This law against sex-selection recognizes a potential abuse of reproductive technology, and addresses potential inequalities by eliminating the risk of sex-targeted fertility treatments. However, should IVF be successful and a pregnancy result, there is no law against aborting that same pre-born child based on its sex. When pregnancy with multiples – twins or triplets – results, it is not uncommon to decide to “reduce the pregnancy” by aborting the child or children of the undesired sex. This dichotomy sends a mixed message on whether life really is valued equally, whether male or female.
Dr. Albert Yuzpe, co-founder of the Genesis Fertility Centre in Vancouver, says the demand for sex-selection during IVF is ongoing in Canada. American websites regularly advertise to Canadians, knowing they can provide options that are illegal in Canada. For example, Overlake Reproductive Health offers payment options for Canadians, has connections with clinics in British Columbia so some appointments can be done in Canada, and promotes their “family balancing” services. Canadian clinics are feeling the pressure, and some may be bowing to it in the interest of increasing business.
In the U.S., where sex selection in IVF is legal, one doctor says that 85% of his patients come to him so they can choose the sex of their baby. This is not IVF as a means of getting pregnant when other means have failed – this is IVF as a means of attempting to control life.
The Assisted Human Reproduction Act of Canada bans sex selection of implanted embryos. The UK and Australia have similar laws. These laws show a basic understanding that we should not determine who gets to live based on their sex. But our lack of abortion law contributes to and confuses the issue, especially when we see that girls are aborted at a much higher rate than boys in some parts of Canada.
We can’t stop prospective parents from traveling to the U.S. and elsewhere for sex selection. But we can and should use law and public dialogue to promote the notion that in this country, both sexes are equally valuable. This includes the need for a law banning sex selective abortion.
]]>
In considering injustice, it is always best to start with unflinching self-examination. We quickly see that this is not a day to rest on our laurels and give thanks for the wonderfully egalitarian, feminist country in which we live. As a Canadian woman it saddens me to know that one violation of rights that faces Canadian girls year after year remains unchanged: sex-selective abortion. While countries around the world have taken steps to address and end sex-selective abortion, Canada continues to ignore the issue. So, today in Surrey, British Columbia, 50,000 pink flags will be planted in a public park to draw attention to the reality that is sex-selective abortion.
Several research studies over the past few years have shown an imbalanced birth rate in Canada, with boys outnumbering girls in a ratio that cannot be explained naturally. Earlier this year, a study headed by Dr. Susitha Wanigaratne and published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health showed a significant imbalance in the boy-girl ratio in South Asian communities. Researchers point to sex-selective abortion, which is allowed in Canada, as a contributor to this imbalance.
Naturally, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. In South Asian families with two girls and one or more reported abortions after that, the ratio shifts to up to 280 boys born for every 100 girls. There is no elevation in boy birth rates when no abortions are reported.
In Canada we say we care deeply about women’s rights, and equality rights. Somehow these rights have come to be synonymous with abortion as a ‘woman’s right’. Yet, this so-called ‘right’ continues to result in abortion disproportionately targeting baby girls. Abortion is not about a woman’s right to choose – it is about taking away a child’s right to live, and it makes a statement about the value that we place on women in Canada when we allow sex-selective abortion. Pre-born children are being killed simply because they are girls, and we need to draw a line that says this is not okay.
It was initially thought that sex-selective abortions in South Asian communities would decrease with the next generation, as they presumably took on Canadian values and recognized the equal worth of women. This most recent study, however, confirms that second-generation South Asian women, born in Canada, continue to show a preference for boys. Manvir Bhangu, a co-author with Wanigaratne of the 2018 study, told the Globe and Mail, “These biases are deeply rooted in our culture.”
These biases are not just deeply rooted in South Asian culture. As one researcher told CTV news, this “problem is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.” There is a reason that second generation South Asian women have not changed their views and suddenly started valuing women more highly. Canada has not modeled to them a valuing of women. Pornography is rampant, women continue to be portrayed as sex objects for men in movies, shows and advertising, and women continue to work for less pay than men.
By telling women we have equality and respect, Trudeau’s government is telling us a lie while refusing us the opportunity to ask questions. In a rapidly changing world of fluid gender and distorted family units, women and their unique child-bearing ability have become a poster child for oppression and repression. So what we have is abortion – is this control over your body and your future? Actually, abortion allows men a unique kind of control, combining a lack of responsibility for this “women’s issue” with allowing a disproportionately large number of new men to be born, to perpetuate the belief that men are more powerful, more valuable, and more essential to society.
There are some signs that we recognize the inherent bias of sex-selection. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibits sex-selection when it comes to in vitro fertilization. But once the embryo develops into a fetus, sex-selective abortion is freely allowed in Canada.
This disconnect in the law and the underlying devaluing of women is the reason we continue working to draw attention to the injustice of sex-selective abortion. The International Day of the Girl is not only about issues facing girls outside of Canada. Called a “women’s issue”, abortion does indeed impact women far more than men – from the very earliest stages. We have work to do to defend girls right here at home.
You can learn more about sex-selective abortion in Canada at DefendGirls.com.
]]>
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.
For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.
Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.
The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.
I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.
DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.
]]>They did, however, leave one important stone unturned: sex-selective abortion. Polls indicate that about 92% of Canadians are opposed to sex-selective abortion. Yet we know it happens in Canada, and it is clearly gender-based violence to decide whether or not someone should live based on your valuation of their sex. It was great to see MP Rachael Harder question Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef on this omission.
Monsef was disappointingly quick to sidestep the issue and focus on the party line of “choice” as crucial for women. Sex-selection, though, is not a choice most Canadians agree with. Sure, we may all secretly hope one way or another for a certain sex to add to our family. Choosing to end the life of a child that doesn’t fit that hope, however, is an entirely different thing. All life is precious, and needing to design our family to the point of being willing to kill our offspring to achieve the perfect family photo is a symptom of some deeper control issues.
Sex-selective abortion is not only a form of gender-based violence, it’s also an easy one to do something about. Not many government changes can be completely effective in two little steps: end late-term abortions and do not reveal the sex of pre-born babies until abortion is off the table. Want to paint the room pink or stock up on blue crib sheets? You still can, and your baby will get to see them.
When discussing gender-based violence, we should start at the very beginning. We have incredible ultrasound technology that lets us know all kinds of things about the little people growing in their mother’s wombs. One thing we know is their sex. Let’s not use it against them.
]]>
We talked about the very specific changes we ask for through our goals of banning sex-selective abortion, recognizing pre-born victims of crime, and implementing an International Standards Law to regulate abortions after 13 weeks gestation. To hear the full conversation, including what some of her listeners had to say, click below (to skip the commercials, start listening at 2 minutes 40 seconds).
]]>Last week Canada committed $20 million to a hastily organized “International Abortion Fund” so that women in developing countries would be able to access abortion services. Marie-Claude Bibeau, Canada’s International Development Minister, told reporters on a conference call that the $20 million was just a start and was all she could get together on such short notice. Canada’s financial commitment was in response to the United States’ decision to cease funding organizations that facilitate abortion overseas. Considering what slow progress is made on addressing issues such as climate change and poverty, it was amazing to see how quickly international partnerships came together to signal solidarity with abortion providers in underdeveloped countries.
Canadians shouldn’t be surprised at this action by the Liberal government. After all, when he became leader, Justin Trudeau did announce that the Liberals were a “no choice-but-pro-choice” party when he declared a ban on pro-life candidates prior to the 2015 election.
It’s not just overseas that abortion access is important to this government. A few weeks ago Maryam Monsef, Canada’s new Status of Women Minister gave Planned Parenthood Ottawa $285,000 so they can use it to help women who face barriers to abortion. According to Ms. Monsef, any barriers to abortion constitute “gender-based violence”.
To be sure, Canadians deplore gender-based violence. It is an affront to the dignity of all human beings and we need bold leadership to address this ongoing challenge. But are we really addressing it by throwing tax dollars to local Planned Parenthood offices or into an international fund where we really have no control over what happens to it?
What if that money is actually contributing to gender-based violence? Internationally, and right here in Canada, there is a form of “reproductive choice” that is itself gender-based violence.
A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016, and reported widely by the media, found that abortion is occurring in Canada based solely on the sex of the child. Most often a female fetus is aborted due to a preference for a male child. The study of more than 6 million births across Canada was received with shock and alarm by Canadians across the political spectrum.
Tripat Kaur, Coordinator of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association, commented, “Sadly and unfortunately sometimes women don’t have any control…she’s forced to do that [abort her child because it’s a girl]. Prenatal sex-determination tests should be banned.” Amrita Mishra, the Project Coordinator for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association responded to the study by saying, “This problem [sex-selective abortion] is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.”
Sex-selective abortion is an affront to the dignity of women and girls. It is gender-based violence. That is why countries around the world are taking steps to protect female fetuses from being discriminated against in such a violent manner. China, which is regularly called out for its human rights abuses, prohibits the use of ultrasound to identify the sex of the fetus unless it is necessitated on medical grounds. And, most recently the UK Parliament voted 181-1 for the introduction of a bill that clarified Britain’s law on sex-selective abortion.
Rather than virtue signaling by committing millions of dollars to fund abortion overseas (and very likely contributing to the global problem of gendercide) Canada’s leaders should bring Canada into line with international standards. They should tackle the injustice of gendercide by prohibiting the vilest form of gender-based violence – killing pre-born girls simply because they are girls.
]]>February 17, 2017
Dear Honourable Maryam Monsef,
Thank you for your continued service to our country in the capacity of Status of Women Minister. As a role model for Canadian women and girls you have an important task and I applaud you for your leadership.
You were recently quoted in a news article in which you stated that, “Reproductive health rights in Canada and around the world are critical to advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We’re committed to making sure that women and girls have that choice, because otherwise, this is a form of gender-based violence.” Gender-based violence is an affront to the dignity of all human beings and I am thankful that the Liberal Party of Canada is taking steps to address it.
My concern, Ms. Monsef, is that there is a form of reproductive choice that is itself gender-based violence.
A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016, and reported on widely by the media, found that abortion is occurring in Canada based solely on the sex of the child. Most often a female fetus was aborted due to a preference for a male child. The study of more than 6 million births across Canada was received with shock and alarm by Canadians across the political spectrum. The news caused Tripat Kaur, Coordinator of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association to say, “Sadly and unfortunately sometimes women don’t have any control…she’s forced to do that [abort her child because it’s a girl]. Prenatal sex-determination tests should be banned.” Amrita Mishra, the Project Coordinator for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association responded by saying, “This problem [sex-selective abortion] is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.”
Ms. Monsef, sex-selective abortion is an affront to the dignity of women and girls; it is gender-based violence. That is why countries around the world are taking steps to protect female fetuses from being discriminated against in such violent manner.
Will you show leadership by bringing Canada into line with every other civilized nation and tackling this form of gender-based violence?
We are requesting a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity to discuss how we address this growing problem of gender-based violence in Canada. Please advise what date works best for your schedule. We can be reached at 1-866-410-9625 or info@test.weneedalaw.ca.
Looking forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mike Schouten
Director, WeNeedaLaw.ca
]]>