NRL News

An exciting time to be a Canadian pro-lifer

by | Oct 3, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth

Pick your favorite metaphor for what is happening in Canada. If it suggests an initial crack in the wall that quickly widens, or something that was long dormant that sudden springs to life, you’re onto it.

We’ve written several times about the victory-in-defeat that was the motion by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth to set up an all-party parliamentary committee to discuss when an unborn child becomes a human being.  (Right now it’s when the child is born!) Although the private member’s motion was voted down 203-91 last week, the proposal has set off a frenzy of reactions.

As pro-abortionists worried, the “defeat” only served to spur on more initiatives, if for no other reason than the heated debate put the lie to the absurd notion that the abortion debate was “settled” in Canada.

The day after the vote on Woodworth’s motion, the House of Commons tabled MP Mark Warawa’s private member’s motion that asked the House to condemn the practice of sex-selective abortions. Why is this important? Because it gets people talking about a reality in Canada–there are sex-selection abortions and nobody can pretend otherwise—and are they comfortable with this?

Here’s an extended quote from the Globe and Mail newspaper that goes a long ways towards explaining why the Canadian Abortion Establishment has gone bonkers. Kim Mackrael writes

“Mr. Warawa says his motion is unrelated to Mr. Woodworth’s and intends only to formalize what he believes is a cross-party consensus that sex-selective abortions are inappropriate.

“He said he was compelled to draft the motion after an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal cited research suggesting women from some communities in Canada were aborting female fetuses because of a preference for males. The author, Rajendra Kale, proposed that health-care professionals avoid revealing the sex of a fetus until about 30 weeks of pregnancy – a point at which it would be more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion.

“A separate Ontario study published in the journal presented evidence that women born in India and South Korea were significantly more likely to have a male baby than women born in Canada when it came to their second or third child. And news reports have suggested that some sonographers agree to reveal the sex of a fetus before a woman is 20 weeks pregnant.

“’I think we have something [in the motion] that everyone should be able to support,’ Mr. Warawa said. ‘My motion is focusing specifically on the discrimination that people would end pregnancies simply because the unborn child is female. And that should never be tolerated anywhere.’ Mr. Warawa said he has no plans to reopen a debate on abortion and believes condemnation of sex selection could serve an educational purpose. The motion is expected to come up for debate next spring.”

But “education” is the last thing pro-abortionists want. It suggests that there is not only new information but also that because of the effort it will surface that the current status quo is not securely pro-abortion on all fronts.

Here’s more. After Mackrael writes that members of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) believe “the right to choose is absolute,” she quotes Julie Lalonde, a board member for the ARCC, who said

“People have the right to be appalled by sex-selective abortion. But we don’t believe for a second that this is a genuine attempt at opposing sex selection in Canada. It is anti-choice MPs and anti-choice organizations that seem to be fixated on sex-selective abortions because it is a seemingly touchy subject, so it gets people who are on the fence about abortion to sympathize with their viewpoint.”

One, killing babies BECAUSE they are females is more than “touchy,” it is obscene. Two, you’re darn tootin’ people will begin to “sympathize” when they realize how abortion is being used.

And it’s important to remember just what absolutists pro-abortionist are in Canada (and here, too, but more discretely so). In 2008 they beat back a bill to make it a criminal offence for someone to attack a woman with the intent of killing her unborn child.

In the most revealing quote, perhaps of all times, Joyce Arthur, executive director of the ARRC, explained her opposition: “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion,” she told the National Post. (emphasis added)

To even say that it is criminal behavior for someone to kill a woman’s wanted baby must be absolutely u-n-a-c-c-e-p-t-a-b-l-e. “Bleed into people’s consciousness”—what a remarkable confession.

You can just smell their panic. It’s a very exciting time to be a pro-lifer in Canada.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: Pro-Lifers