NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

A confluence of forces shakes up the abortion debate in Canada

Feb 5, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Jonathan Kay

The louder (and they are loud) and more disparaging (to put it politely) pro-abortionists in Canada libel pro-lifers, the more obvious it is that things ARE changing.

In addition to our own accounts, we’ve reprinted stories from pro-life Canadian sources in an attempt to get you a feel for what’s going on North of the border.

A number of different components  are coming together to shake up the status quo which in Canada is no—repeat no— legal protection for pre-born children at any stage of development. When this undeniable truth is pointed out, the anti-life responses are fascinating, even more so now that Statistics Canada has released startling data indicating that 491 babies died after they were born alive following failed[!] abortions between 2000 and 2009. (See http://nrlc.cc/VRaZcy.)

Let’s back up a second to see how the various strands are coming together. We’ve talked often about how the creative challenges from the Canadian pro-life Movement are gradually unraveling the media consensus that the abortion debate has ended forever and anyone who dares to think otherwise is a crazy extremist.

What are pro-lifers asking of their “progressive” counterparts? How about  are you open to ANY limits in a situation where (for purpose of the criminal code) the unborn child does not qualify as a ‘human being’ until birth?! What about aborting female babies for no other reason than the fact that they are not males? That bother you?

They’ve set the stage ingeniously by saying, “Let’s talk.” No legislation, let’s just have a parliamentary committee to study the Criminal Code definition of a human being. When that was defeated, it did not go unnoticed that it gathered many more votes than anyone anticipated, including Rona Ambrose, the minister responsible for the status of women.

Likewise, coming up soon, there will be a debate on “Motion 408” which calls on Parliament to condemn the discrimination against females that is part and parcel of sex-selective abortions. As two academics who are writing a book about the abortion debate in Canada recently wrote, MP Mark Warawa’s main online poster for the initiative is “thoroughly framed by the language of women’s rights—‘Protect Girls. Stop Gendercide. Support M-408.’”

That’s two set of developments: the truth that over a roughly ten-year period, 491 babies died after they were born alive following “failed” abortions; the request to talk about whether there aren’t commonsense limitations on a “right” to abortion.

This overlaps with a debate over whether, in practice, there are any limitations on abortion. A bracing back and forth started when National Post columnist Jonathan Kay wrote last Friday, “The fact is that Canada is the only nation in the Western world without any abortion law. It is perfectly legal in Canada to have or perform an abortion — for any reason, or no reason at all — at 20, 25, 30 or 35 weeks gestation.”

You can read his response to Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett’s brief rebuttal. The gist of is he overstated the case: there must be serious reasons for a post-24 week abortion in Canada, according to Bennett. (See http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/04/jonathan-kay-some-question-for-carolyn-bennett-and-my-other-pro-choice-critics.)

Kay points out counter-evidence that suggests that is not true, including a pro-life blogger who reported  “that a McGill bioethicist has seen cases of abortions well past 24 weeks gestation for reasons that were not medically necessary” and  2010 “speaking notes from a medical-services official [that] apparently would indicate that some healthy post-24-week fetuses are aborted for reasons connected with a woman’s ‘immigration’ status and her criminal record.”

But Kay quickly says, okay, let’s accept for the sake of argument Bennett’s “contention that Canada’s professional medical societies are enforcing a de facto national abortion policy — a policy whereby, absent medical need or serious fetal abnormalities, women cannot receive abortion services past 24 weeks gestation.” If that is true, it establishes the principle–does it not?—that there are limitations.

“And so I ask,” Kay writes, “If some Canadian decision-making body is going to determine when a woman is allowed to have an abortion on demand, why is it better that such a body be composed of unelected doctors, rather than elected politicians?”

The point to remember is that there a militantly hostile pro-abortion culture that dominates the media and academia, to name just two outposts. What Bennett (or Kay, for that matter) would propose as a point past which abortions are not allowed is not, by any stretch of the imagination, where pro-lifers are coming from.

But the discussion is a way of establishing a toehold, a starting point from which to roll back, however gradually, the pro-abortion juggernaut. In a Parliament that recently refused even to set up a committee to talk about the unborn’s status under the criminal code, that’s an important baby step forward.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Categories: Pro-Lifers