One sign of a humane and just society is how we react when confronted with an unexpected injustice. The torture and abuse inflicted on chickens by farm workers was intentional and wholly unacceptable. The reactions that poured in on social media show that we have compassion for animals and, generally speaking, an understanding that there are more proper ways to handle the production of chicken prior to it being served up on our dinner plates.

There is another species in Canada that endures a similar fate to the suffering chickens seen in the Mercy for Animals video. In fact, this species has no protection whatsoever and this leads to 100,000 of them being dismembered, disemboweled, and decapitated every single year in Canada. And there is nary a murmur or complaint from the public.

It is laudable to advocate for the humane treatment of chickens and to express righteous indignation when exposed to videos such as we saw this week. How much more, then, should we advocate for something far more precious than a chicken? If we are truly a humane and compassionate society then it’s time for Canadians to ask for lawful protection of pre-born children.

Who is Rick Peterson? He is one of the fourteen candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. He’s an investment advisor from Vancouver, BC, a self-avowed “progressive conservative” who joined the leadership race last November after many others had already been campaigning for months. One of fourteen candidates, he hasn’t even been on the radar of pro-lifers. In fact, according the pro-life group Right Now, he doesn’t even deserve consideration by Canadians who are working to advance pre-born human rights.

So, you may ask, what could possibly be in this Peterson email that serves to encourage us? I won’t quote the email in its entirety, but the middle three paragraphs are telling:

I will be compassionate in understanding that some women may choose to undergo an abortion because they find themselves in a difficult situation.

To that end, as Prime Minister, I will work with provinces in order to reduce teenage pregnancies and increase funding for psychological counseling in abortion clinics. I will also increase collaboration with charities and organizations that provide support to pregnant women in financial or psychological distress.  I will also support initiatives that inform pregnant women about financial aid and adoption programs as a mean to reduce the number of abortions.

In line with the Party platform, I will support and prioritize comprehensive legislation making it criminal to use abortion as a mean to discriminate against female fetuses. (emphasis added)

The email begins with Peterson stating that he is “pro-choice” and clearly he supports a women’s right to choose abortion. And yet, if elected, Mr. Peterson is promising to address teenage pregnancy, increase funding for charities (pregnancy care centres), and criminalize sex-selective abortion! The only other candidate to address these topics with tangible policy solutions is Pierre Lemieux, and based on his long pro-life record we would expect Lemieux to speak to this.

What would precipitate Peterson offering promises on something so far out of his wheelhouse? The answer is YOU! You have not given into the idea that the debate on pre-born human rights is over, and have made it clear that a successful leadership bid can include pro-life promises. Now, before I get too far ahead of myself or you misunderstand, I am not suggesting that Peterson should receive your support. We Need a Law is non-partisan, which means that we will not endorse or oppose any candidate. What I am saying is that, because of your persistence in calling for abortion laws, and your continued participation in all aspects of the political process, candidates are realizing that they need our support if want to have a chance of winning.

God only knows if Rick Peterson will be successful in the Conservative Party leadership race. What we have been given through his specific targeting of pro-life support is a huge endorsement of our efforts.

Please be encouraged and continue to press on!

New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive although this latest news from the United Kingdom is less than encouraging. As reported by LifeNews.com there has been a 34% increase in the number of abortions on babies with Down syndrome since a new genetic test became available in 2011. From the article:

Although most of the medical community praises the new screening, fetal medicine specialist Dr. Bryan Beattie, aired a different perspective on the testing. He said, “The real issue next, in around two or three years’ time, will be an ethical one – where do you stop? Do you screen for breast cancer genes, for Huntington’s – or taking it a step further, test for eye and hair colour?”

Canada is not immune to this either and we ought not deceive ourselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.

LifeNews.com interviewed Hayley Goleniowska, a mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said, “I fear it will lead to a larger abortion rate of babies with Down’s. In quieter moments I weep to think of what we could lose. Women need unbiased information – it’s not the test that worries me, it’s how it is implemented.”

Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.

When the Supreme Court in the U.S. legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) they extended a woman’s privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to her decision to have an abortion. This legal reality changed somewhat in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) when the court affirmed that a woman has a right to abortion, but only until fetal viability.

In Canada women have no such right. Certainly, abortion was decriminalized in Canada when our Supreme Court ruled in the R. v. Morgentaler decision (1988), but the judges did not give women a “constitutional right” to abortion.

Yet, in the 43 years since Roe v. Wade pro-lifers in the U.S. have advanced many protections for pre-born children, while in Canada we are closing in on three decades of failure to enact any such legislation. In the past six years alone the US has passed more than 300 pro-life laws!

The Casey decision opened the door to state legislation that regulated the procedure and also protected pre-born children in the latter stages of pregnancy. According to National Right to Life, the oldest and largest pro-life organization in the U.S., 14 states have what are called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection” laws in place. Such laws protect from abortion pre-born children who are capable of feeling pain. Medical evidence demonstrates with certainty that pre-born children are capable of experiencing pain by 20 weeks after fertilization; these laws ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation? In a 2014 letter to The Guardian, Gerard Mitchell, former provincial court judge (1975-77), P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice (1981-1987) and Chief Justice from 1987 until 2008 wrote the following about the Morgentaler decision: “None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Even Madam Justice Wilson, who rendered the most liberal opinion in favour of a right to abortion, advocated an approach to abortion that would balance that right with the state’s interest in protecting the unborn.” [Emphasis added]

The answer to the question, “Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation” (or any legislation that regulates abortion) is not because the science isn’t on our side. And it’s certainly not because our highest court has given Canadian women a right to abortion. Rather, a significant reason why the status quo remains is because of the inertia and fear of politicians to support such legislation in the face of a virtually unchallenged liberal media.

Fetal pain legislation similar to what we’ve seen passed in the U.S. would ban abortion after twenty weeks gestation. While statistics on abortion are difficult to ascertain in Canada, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada estimates there were 104,158 abortions in 2014. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, approximately 2.4% of abortions are procured after 20 weeks gestation. Based on these estimates, we can safely say that 2,500 abortions occur post-twenty weeks gestation every year in Canada. But the reality is we don’t really know.

Fetal pain legislation would not only save lives, it is supported by a majority of Canadians. You don’t need to call yourself pro-life to understand that inflicting pain on a human being is unjust.

In other pages of this issue of Reflections Magazine you will read about the substantive medical evidence that pre-born children experience pain by twenty weeks gestation.

The status quo can be improved on and fetal pain legislation can become a reality in Canada.

The role of the state is to pass laws that restrict evil. Fetal pain legislation could limit the evil of abortion and save the lives of pre-born children. Fetal pain legislation would also raise the cultural awareness of the human rights of the pre-born child. It would put abortion restrictions back into the Criminal Code, thereby sending the message that something is wrong with abortion.

Progressive improvement is better than deferred protection.
_______________________________
This article was written by Mike Schouten, the director for WeNeedaLAW.ca, a public awareness campaign that mobilizes Canadians for the purpose of passing laws that protect pre-born children. It first appeared in Life Canada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted here with permission. 

Sources:
Guttmacher Institute (2016, January 4) 2015 Year-End State Policy Roundup. Retrieved from: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/01/2015-year-end-state-policy-roundup
The 1988 Morgentaler Decision – What the Supreme Court decided. Retrieved from: http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/what-the-court-decided/
Planned Parenthood (2014, January) Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact. Retrieved from: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf
National Right to Life (2016, May 31) Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Retrieved from: http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/stateleg/PCUCPAfactsheet.pdf
We Need a Law – Direction Matters. Retrieved from: https://test.weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf

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.

Except, there is an inconsistency in when science matters and when it doesn’t. When discussing human life, and the genesis of each human being, science is completely ignored and that includes the possible experience of pain a fetus may feel during the abortion procedure.

In Europe, restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation are common and accepted, and, as such, fetal pain is addressed much differently than in Canada or the United States. In North America, many people come from a perspective of fear, where any consideration given to a fetus is viewed as an attack on women’s rights.

Studies from India and the United Kingdom refer to the rising demand for fetal surgery, and the “considerable evidence that the fetus may experience pain” leads to the uncomplicated conclusion that the right types and doses of anesthetic need to be determined for various procedures. It is clear that anesthesiologists require specialized training to address the needs of pregnant women and their pre-born children.

Multiple studies have shown that even babies who are not yet viable (before 20-24 weeks) exhibit consistent, measurable stress responses to pain. While many still debate the brain science behind this, a study out of the UK says these reactions themselves are enough to result in “a moral obligation to provide fetal anaesthesia and analgesia.”  It has also been shown and attested to by multiple doctors specializing in the field of fetal surgery that “pain and stress may affect fetal survival and neurodevelopment.”

A study from Belgium admits that providing anesthesia prenatally presents a challenge, both from the perspective of its questionable necessity as well as dosage considerations. Still, recognizing the delicate balance when both mother and child need to be taken into account is fundamentally different from the Canadian question of whether both need to be taken into account.

Kirti Saxena, published in the Indian Journal of Anesthesia, states, “After surgery there are two patients to be cared for, and a second operating room should be available in case further surgery is needed in the neonate.”

As science and medicine continue to advance, fetal surgeries will become more common. Increased prenatal testing and diagnosis may lead to increased abortions, but seem just as likely to lead to increased demand for reliable fetal surgeries to give children their best chance at life.

In Canada, we need to follow the lead of our European counterparts, where fetal surgery and fetal anesthetic are inextricably linked, and where the humanity of the second patient is assumed, not demonized. This will allow fetal surgery as a field to improve and develop to become another support system for women.  Our laws need to reflect the humanity of the second patient in fetal surgeries, honouring the mothers who choose to give their babies a chance as well as the doctors who pour their talents into such tiny, fragile patients.

This article was written by Anna Nienhuis, Research and Communications Coordinator for WeNeedaLAW.ca. It first appeared in LifeCanada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted with permission.

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

We know that Justin Trudeau fully supports the legal killing of pre-born children. We also know that over 100,000 abortions occur every year in Canada – and they are all paid for with your tax dollars.

In response to the Trump administrations re-enacting of the Mexico City Policy, an order that ensures U.S. foreign aid will not be used to subsidize abortion overseas, Trudeau has begun to actively pursue new opportunities to fund abortion in underdeveloped countries.

And he wants to use more of your tax dollars to achieve his goal!

It’s already tragic enough that we pay for this grievous injustice taking place in Canada. Now the federal government seems intent on forcing us to pay for the killing of even more pre-born children.

The House of Commons has resumed sitting today. Your MP is back in Ottawa and they need to hear the message loud and clear that we do not want any more of our tax dollars going to fund the killing of pre-born children.

There are three ways we are asking you to connect with your MP:

1. Call him or her. Your representative gets very few phone calls. A phone call makes them stop and take notice in a way email cannot.
   1. To find your MPs phone number simply type your postal code in the “Contact your Representative” bar at the top of this page.
   2. Call them at their ‘Hill Office’ number.
   3. Remember to be respectful and maintain a calm tone.
   4. In addition to using the talking points below, be sure you get an answer to this question: “Does MP [name] support the use of Canadian tax payer dollars to fund overseas abortions?”
2. Follow this call with an email the next day
   1. You can use the Simple Mail letter provided here. Please edit the intro with a reference to the phone call you already made. Something like, “Thanks for taking the time to listen to me yesterday. I am sending this to ensure you have received my concern…”
   2. We also encourage you to use the same “Contact your Representative” tool at the top of this page to locate your MP and send your own email to him or her.
   3. As with the phone call, make sure you get an answer to the question: “Do you support the use of Canadian tax payer dollars to fund overseas abortions?”
3. Call the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Development with the same message. The numbers for each office are above. Be sure to leave a message if you receive an answering machine.

Here are three simple talking points:

• You recently heard that the Canadian government was looking to expand on their funding of abortion overseas;
• You do not support your tax dollars going to pay for abortion at home or overseas;
• Pregnant women in developing countries are in desperate need of medicine, clean water, and maternal health – not abortion!

Will you take a stand with us and engage with these three calls to action?

Together we can make a difference!

This week President Trump re-enacted the Mexico City Policy, an order that ensures U.S. foreign aid will not subsidize abortion overseas. This is leadership on behalf of the voiceless. It is also the fruit of many years of hard work by American pro-lifers.

So how is Canada responding? Shockingly, our federal government is talking with the Netherlands and other nations to step up to the plate and raise $600 million to bail out programs run by International Planned Parenthood Federation!

Understand this correctly – Canada’s government is now actively exploring opportunities overseas to contribute even more of your tax dollars towards the killing of pre-born children.

Readers may recall that a signature component of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Muskoka Initiative – a funding agreement for maternal, newborn, and child health, was that the money Canada contributed could not be used to facilitate abortions in third-world countries. Simply put, abortion is not health care. It is the taking of life.

Upon taking office in 2015 the Trudeau government immediately said that they would reverse this policy. The mandate letter sent to International Development Minister, Marie-Claude Bibeau asked her to ensure that that aid for maternal, newborn and child health “is driven by evidence and outcomes, not ideology, including by closing existing gaps in reproductive rights and health care for women.”

The message from Prime Minister Trudeau is clear: 100,000 abortions in Canada is not enough.

We know Trudeau is unabashedly pro-abortion. But where is the Opposition on this? Where are organizations that exist to stand up for Canadian taxpayers? Where are those who work so hard to protect genuine human rights? What does your MP think about this? Will anyone speak up?

We are not going to be silent while our government is using their position of authority and our finances to eradicate life at home and abroad. Will you join us in standing up? Next week we will be rolling out a campaign to speak up – and we will be looking to you to join us in this. Be ready for action.

Somerset, a Black slave, was brought from Virginia to England in 1769, by his master, Charles Stewart.  Two years later he escaped.  He was then captured and put on a ship to be transported to Jamaica, there to be sold.  Somerset’s Christian godparents applied to the court for Somerset’s release.

The case attracted a great deal of attention in the press.  Somerset’s lawyers argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law of Parliament recognized the existence of slavery, and slavery was therefore unlawful.  Stewart’s lawyers argued that property was paramount, and that it would be dangerous to free all Blacks in England.  Members of the public donated monies to support the lawyers for both sides of the argument.

Guided in part by the maxim fiat justitia, ruat coelum (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”), Lord Mansfield ruled that since England’s written laws did not clearly permit or establish slavery, Stewart had no legal right to force Somerset to go to Jamaica: “… no master ever was allowed here to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatever.”

Lord Mansfield’s narrow and technical ruling merely stated that British slave owners in England could not force their slaves to be forcibly taken to the colonies.  But this judgment was actually silent about the status of slaves in England.

Lord Mansfield’s judgment had a profound effect on slaves. Many of them misunderstood the ruling to mean that slaves were emancipated in Britain.  Despite Lord Mansfield’s best efforts, the case was reported in the press, and internationally, as ending slavery in England.

After the ruling, numerous newspaper advertisements of the time show that Black slaves continued to be bought and sold in England.  Nevertheless, this court ruling proved to be a boon for the anti-slavery movement.  The perception of there being an “anti-slavery” court ruling, while inaccurate, helped turn public opinion against slavery.  In 1807 Parliament abolished the slave trade, and by 1838 slavery in British colonies was also abolished.

In 21st Century Canada, there is much public confusion about the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Morgentaler, rendered 29 years ago this January 28.  In Morgentaler, five of seven Justices struck down section 251 of the Criminal Code, which allowed abortions only if approved by a Therapeutic Abortion Committee.

Justices Dickson and Lamer held that section 251 was arbitrary and unfair, and did not provide a clear exemption from the criminal law.  Nowhere do they state that there is a constitutional right to abortion.

Justices Beetz and Estey recognized society’s interest in the protection of the unborn child, ruling that Parliament is justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion as to the “life or health” of the pregnant woman in order to protect the state interest in a foetus.

Justice Wilson held that protecting an unborn child is a “perfectly valid legislative objective,” especially during the latter stages of pregnancy, but not in the early stages of pregnancy.

Justices McIntyre and La Forest ruled that “no right of abortion can be found in Canadian law, custom or tradition” or in “the language, structure or history of the constitutional text …or in the history, traditions or underlying philosophies of our society.”  These two Justices also recognized the public interest in the protection of the unborn, and stated that courts must refrain from imposing or creating rights with no identifiable base in the Charter.

In short, the Supreme Court in Morgentaler recognized expressly that Parliament has the right to pass legislation to protect the unborn, with five of seven Justices striking down Section 251 as the wrong way to achieve that legitimate goal.  This muddled and incoherent decision was not a victory for pro-lifers.  However, with the Court inviting Parliament to draft different legislation, this ruling is certainly no victory for pro-choicers.

Nevertheless, abortion supporters have sometimes characterized the Morgentaler ruling as a Canadian version of Roe v. Wade, by which the U.S. Supreme Court did, in fact, create a constitutional right to abortion.  For example, some student unions have claimed that pro-life speech should be banned at universities “because abortion is a constitutional right.”  Leaving aside the fact that a free society allows its citizens to criticize and disagree with the constitution, this claim completely mischaracterizes the Morgentaler decision.

The false notion that R. v. Morgentaler established a constitutional right to abortion can have a very powerful and negative impact in shaping public policy.  If the Canadian public perceives the Morgentaler ruling as a pro-choice victory, this will influence public opinion in favour of abortion being legal.

Those who want to see Parliament pass a law to protect the unborn should not mourn the Morgentaler decision as a victory for their pro-choice opponents.  Doing so helps the pro-choice side.

Instead, pro-lifers should point out that in Morgentaler, the Supreme Court invited Parliament to pass legislation to protect the unborn.

Calgary lawyer John Carpay practices constitutional law.