98% of Canadians supported Motion 312

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth's Motion which:

"asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 91 members showed support for the bill asking that the special committee be appointed. Unfortunately, 203 members voted against the appointment of the special committee."

Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support
Mark Warawa's Motion 408 had 99.7% support

Once again, we see a Prime Minister completely out of step with the Canadian public he supposedly serves.

Back as far as 2001 we had politicians playing the run-away-from-anything-relating-to-abortion game, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein did it:

"Discussing the possibility of defunding abortion, Klein said in a press conference that “The chances, I believe, are slim and none.” The Edmonton Sun reported that when pressed on whether the issue was open to debate, Klein said, “No, it’s not. Not at all. No. Full stop.” In the legislature, Klein went further, saying “My position is that this is a matter between a woman, her doctor and her God.”

Now it's almost all politicians who play this game. Apparently there's not a backbone in the lot of them.
 
So what is it exactly is going on here? Is it that our fearless leader Mr. Harper is in fact fearful of a very tiny minority of pro-abortion extremists? Or is it that Mr. Harper is simply the de facto pro-choice leader in Canada?

Why we need Motion 490

I think the timing of Maurice Vellacott's Motion 490 is perfect.

M-490 would change the votability process for Private Members' Business through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. Vellacott wrote this in his backgrounder on Motion 490:

Examples of how the current votability determination process has failed  

The most recent and obvious example was Mark Warawa's Motion 408 in 2013. Mr. Warawa appealed the PMB Subcommittee's non-votability ruling to the PROC committee. The members of PROC, which upheld the subcommittee's decision, conducted their deliberations behind closed doors--even MPs who had attended the meeting as observers were told to leave.

I have been compiling the results of my most recent ATIP to the PCO on that very Motion of Mr. Warawa's.

I had asked for all correspondence from the public and from the media, to Prime Minister Harper, regarding Mark Warawa's motion 408.

In other words, I was looking to see how much support there was for Motion 408.

What I learned, was that the Prime Minister received a total of 699 individual emails/letters. Of these 699 letters, there were only two letters against the motion.

That's two letters against the motion. 2 letters. Two letters. T-W-O letters.

Without putting too fine a point on it (pun intended), that means that only point three percent (.3%) of Canadians were against Motion 408.

In one of that large number of against-the-motion letters, the letter writer simply provided the Prime Minister with some of Joyce Arthur's usual pro-abortion nonsense on the subject.

Letter #1:

The second against-the-motion correspondence, is listed below, and includes the letter writer's original email. Then the PM's response. Then the writer's additional response to the PM's response.

Letter #2:

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Ambrose:

Just one day after Minister Ambrose finally acknowledged that the majority of Canadians have no interest in debating abortion, the Canadian Press is reporting that (text blacked out) used House of Commons letterhead to request that the RCMP investigate any abortions performed after 19 weeks in Canada as possible homicides.

Not only do these MPs pretend ignorance of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a fetus from the definition of human being in relation to homicide law, they implicitly challenge the constitutionally protected right and freedom of women to choose to have safe, legal abortions.

I note, too, that House of Commons time has been taken up with numerous anti-abortion petitions since the defeat of Motion 312, and that, if legislative experience in the U.S. on the matter of a ban of sex-selective abortion serves as an indicator, more time will be taken up in defeating the equally unwanted Motion 408.

When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? 

I look forward to your response.

The PMO responded with this:

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.  

Thank you for writing.  

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reru votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons titre bien infonnes de ('opinion des correspondants.  

Je vous remercie d'avoir ecrit au Premier ministre.

To which the outraged letter writer responded:

Excuse me, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to my question: When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? He has not responded. Will he kindly respond?

So like Bill C-510, nearly all Canadians who wrote the Prime Minister on M-408 (99.7%), supported it. (Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support)

So why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to the majority of Canadians? Why is he instead listening to only two Canadians? Is this the kind of people Mr. Harper is getting his advice from?

If it is, then I think Mr. Vellacott's newest Motion is just the thing we need.

Parliament out of step with the Canadian public

(This was first published on weneedaLAW.ca)

Nearly everyone who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne's Law, supported the bill. Only a tiny number who wrote, were actually against the bill.

In December 2012, I sent an Access to Information request to the Privy Council Office (PCO) looking for information on MP Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510.

I asked for: "all information relating to Bill C-510 including briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510".

The package I finally received contained 713 pages. Access to Information requests are never very quick and almost never take the legislated 30 days. This request took eight months to be received in its entirety.

Pages 1-4 were excluded because of "cabinet confidences".

Pages 5-59 contained a complete list of "Senate Government Bills" and one entry identified Bill C-510, which is why the pages were included.

Pages 60-125 were all withheld, also because of cabinet confidences.

Pages 126-713 contained letters and emails from members of the public regarding their support or non-support for the bill, along with the PCO's responses. All responses were identical and all personal information was blacked out.

There were three organizations (The Catholic Women's League, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Priests for Life Canada) and 423 letters from individuals, all who supported the bill. The Catholic Women's League stated that they were writing on behalf of 106 of its members.

That's at least 531 shows of support for the bill (e.g. 423 individuals, plus 106 individuals from one organization, and the other two organizations. I don't know how many individuals belonged to the other two organizations).

There were a total of 17 letters written from individuals, who were not in support of the bill.

In other words, 97% of people who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne's Law, supported the bill and 3% of those who wrote to the Prime Minister, did not support the bill.

Clearly Parliament is out of step with the Canadian Public.

One "pro-choice" person wrote this letter to the Prime Minister:

"Thank you for supporting the Canadian public in encouraging your members to vote against Roxanne's Law. I am not normally a supporter of the Conservative Party, but I believe that you are finally listening to the voices of Canadian women on this issue. Well done Mr. Harper."

The irony of this letter of course, is that Mr. Harper did not in fact, listen to the voices of Canadian women on this issue.

And what was in those 69 pages I couldn't see? Who knows? I could complain to the Information Commissioner but that would be pointless. Her office would not be able to review those pages either, as it has no authority to see the content of information excluded because of cabinet confidences.

It shouldn't be this way. At the very least, the Information Commissioner should have the power to view "cabinet confidences" and rule for herself whether or not they should be legitimately excluded from the public's view. She cannot. And remember that this wasn't even a government bill. So why did the PCO invoke cabinet confidence anyway?

Look at what the Department of Justice wrote in a document called Strengthening the Access to Information Act.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/atip-aiprp/atia-lai/p4.html

"A statutory amendment could be enacted to grant the Information Commissioner a limited right of review of the issuance of certificates by the Clerk of the Privy Council, therefore ensuring the Information Commissioner's review of the Cabinet confidence exclusion."

This is a golden opportunity for an MP to introduce a private member's bill to table such an amendment. One wouldn't even have to be pro-life to support it. This would be about effective oversight to increase government accountability and transparency. It would get all party support.

Time to fix the Access to Information Act

In December 2010, I made a request to the Department of Justice under Canada’s Access to Information Act, looking for information on Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510, Roxanne's Law.

After a long, arduous, and drawn out saga, that included changing my initial request (1) to reduce the scope (2), and reduce the quoted cost from $666 to $0, I finally received the information.

It was received in three parts dated June 27, 2012, September 12, 2012, and November 5, 2012. (My original request would have cost me $666. How can the average Canadian afford such prohibitive costs to access information from their government?)

That's a long time to wait to receive information (18 months, 21 months and 23 months) that should normally take 30 days.

I complained to the Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, regarding this lengthy process. The Commissioner's office investigated and found that my complaint was "well founded." Don't get excited though, there doesn't seem to be any repercussions to Justice:
"Subsection 4(2.1) of the Act codifies the duty to assist. One of the principal aspects of this duty includes providing timely access to requested records. We find JUS failed to comply with its duty to assist obligations when it failed to respond to your request within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Act. Nonetheless, JUS sent you its interim responses on June 27, 2012, and September 12, 2012, and its final response on November 5, 2012. Based on the above, we will record your complaint as well-founded, resolved without having made recommendations to the head of the institution."

Justice apparently had to do outside consultations for my request but this didn't forgive their tardiness. (Justice consulted with the Privy Council Office; I am still waiting to hear back from the Information Commissioner's office as to why this was necessary.)

The Information Commissioner's Office further stated that:
"While consultations with other government departments may have been required, JUS is the government institution responsible for processing the request and is therefore accountable to initiate and manage the consultations so that responses are received within a reasonable period of time."

So what did I receive? A lot of redacted information in the first 202 pages, and not much else in the last two smaller batches (19 and 14 pages).

Most of the information pertained to the scheduling of meetings, translation services, phone call requests and docketing of information. In other words, administrative information. Also included were different versions of the government's speeches on C-510 and talking points.

Any other information I received appeared to be already publicly available, like Hansard and some media articles.

Information was redacted and withheld under these sections of the Act:

19 (1) [personal information],
21. (1) [advice or recommendations],
21. (b) [consultations or deliberations],
21. (c) [positions or plans],
23. [solicitor-client privilege],
69 (1)(a) [proposals or recommendations to Council],
69 (1)(g) [any records making a reference to (a) to (f)] [confidences of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada] of the Act.

The 19 and 14 page documents were basically emails, with "from" and "to" information, with almost everything else blacked out.

I am appealing to the Information Commissioner again, on the grounds that much of the information was redacted.

Maybe there's hope yet though. This article from last December quotes the information commissioner as speaking out against the problems that exist in citizen's abilities to access information:
"After releasing a report showing mixed reviews in federal government response to requests for public records, Parliament's information watchdog, Suzanne Legault, said it's time to correct the flaws in Canada's access to information legislation.

Canada's Access to Information Act, first adopted in 1982, requires federal government departments, agencies and Crown corporations to release public records to anyone who makes a request and pays a $5 fee.

But Legault, the federal information commissioner, said the legislation should no longer have exclusions that prevent her office from reviewing files when officials decide to withhold information in categories such as federal cabinet secrets...

"Exclusions are, in my view, arcane in matters of access to information if one looks at international standards. I think that when we first enacted an Access to Information Act in 1982, we were considered to be leaders around the world, and now we are considered to be laggards and I don't think that any Canadian should be happy with this situation."

...she noted that a recent evaluation of freedom of information legislation around the world ranked Canada 55th out of about 100 countries."

It's time for an MP to take this on and introduce his or her own Private Member's Bill to clean up the Access to Information Act. To make ATIPs timely; to make all information accessible in practice instead of only in theory; to make it affordable instead of having two-tiered access to information; to give the Information Commissioner some teeth to review cabinet confidences and to decide for herself if they truly should be hidden from public scrutiny.

I'm pretty sure there would be a lot of support for such a bill, both from Canadians and from all political parties. Maybe then we can finally learn what the government in power is really up to.

Why have access to information at all, if in cases like with Justice, it hardly yields any information? And Bill C510 was a Private Member's Bill, not a government bill. So why did Justice need to a) contact the Privy Council office and b) invoke the cabinet confidence clause at all? Because the Bill had nothing to do with the government.

Finally, the irony of all of this, is that Mr. Harper was the champion of the Federal Accountability Act, whose purpose was supposed to "strengthen access to information legislation" and make sure that "the Government is more transparent and more open."

Clearly, something got lost in translation.

(1) original ATIP request:
"Could you please send me copies of all correspondence relating to Bill C-510 ( Roxanne's Law) between and within the following offices/departments: the Justice Minister's Office, Prime Minister's Office, Privy Council Office, Justice Department, the public and the media, including briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510. The correspondence requested could be between any of: the Justice Minister's Office, Prime Minister's Office, Privy Council Office, and Justice Department, as well as the public and media. In other words, any and all documents, that are internal to any of these places, OR that traveled between any of these places."

(2) modified ATIP request:
"briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510, from April 2010 until January 10, 2011, which would include final versions or last draft of record."
(As you can see I gave up a lot in this modified request, since it excluded all correspondence to the Minister’s Office, PM office, PCO, the public and the media. In other words, it only included information inside Justice. However, judging by the amount of blacked out information I did receive, we can assume that much of this additional information would probably also have been heavily blacked out--had I been able to obtain it.)

Harper or Obama: who would you choose?

There are two ways to be "pro-choice". The first is the Barack Obama way. The second is the Stephen Harper way.

The way Mr. Obama does it, is the in your face approach. There can be no doubt about where Mr. Obama stands on "women's rights". He is not even against partial birth abortion. And neither is Mrs. Obama.

This is what Mr. Obama said regarding the Born Alive Act, a bill that requires doctors to give care to babies who survive abortions. In the audio Mr. Obama argues against a law that would require another doctor to come in and save the baby if it's viable.

(Also notice he has some trouble with what to call the born child, calling it a fetus):
"That if that fetus, or child, however you want to describe it, is now outside of the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's non viable but there's lets say movement or some indication that they're not just coming out limp and dead that in fact they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved?"

In fact Mrs. Obama actively campaigned for her husband in 2004 calling partial-birth abortion “legitimate” medicine:
“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.”

That great abortion mecca in the US, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), even gave Obama a "100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007".

Mr. Obama also cozies up to International Planned Parenthood. So much so, that the White House actually produced a video on Youtube where he thanks IPPF.



Now we come to the Stephen Harper way of being pro-choice. Where does Mr. Harper stand on abortion? Well, he's never said that he supports abortion. He's also never said that he's against abortion. (Though I did find this quote in 2002 where he says he's "moderately pro-life". Whatever that means). Ever since of course, Mr. Harper has refused to discuss abortion in any way shape or form.

Even though Mr. Harper won't talk about abortion, his actions clearly tells us he is pro-choice.

For instance, in the fall of 2008, Mr. Harper conveniently called an election, killing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, Bill C-484, which had previously passed the Second Reading vote in the spring of 2008 (Note: all bills die when an election is called). Then Mr. Harper voted against Roxanne's Law against coerced abortion (Bill C-510). Next Mr. Harper voted against study to look at when life begins (Motion 312). And finally, Mr. Harper tells us his government will vote against a Motion against sex-selection abortion (Motion 408).

And last and probably most, Mr. Harper won't let us discuss abortion in Parliament, which is quite puzzling. Mr. Harper is not afraid of debating any other issue in this country. So why is he so afraid of debating or discussing abortion?

At least Obama is up-front about where he stands on abortion, he supports a "woman's right to choose" and says so. Mr. Harper just zippers his lips. But if you aren't against something, you're for it. So Mr. Harper is pro-choice.

If I had to choose between the two "pro-choice" strategies, I'd choose Mr.Obama's any day. At least we know what we're up against.

For so long Social Conservatives thought Mr. Harper was pro-life and just waiting for that majority, which he got, yet nothing changed. Except maybe, Mr. Harper dug in his pro-choice heels a little bit deeper.

I have only one question I'd like to ask. We all know that behind every great man stands an even greater woman. This is certainly true of the Obamas, the Clintons, and others. What about the Harpers? Is the great woman behind Mr. Harper the driving force behind his irrational refusal to discuss abortion? Interesting question, n'est ce pas?

Abortion incrementalism: the series

Here are all posts on this topic (Last updated April 12, 2013):

Archbishop Prendergast advocates helping pregnant women and placing restrictions on abortion (June 4, 2010)

Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510 (September 23, 2010)

Priests for Life Canada urges all Catholics to contact MPs to vote for Roxanne's law  (December 9, 2010)

Abortion incrementalism (May 27, 2011)

More on abortion incrementalism (June 2, 2011)

More on abortion incrementalism (continued) (June 5, 2011)

Why does Canada have no laws protecting unborn children?   (August 29, 2011)

Archbishop Miller says we need an abortion law  (May 17, 2012)

How to get there from here (May 27, 2012)

Abortion law unlikely without change in tactics  (By Dr. Paul Ranalli, June 3, 2012, with numerous comments that continue the discussion)

Why ‘weneedaLAW’ in Canada’s abortion debate  (By John Hof, director of Campaign Life Coalition B.C, June 10, 2012)

Banning third trimester abortions (July 13, 2012)

Priests for Life Canada and what they support  (July 17, 2012)

Banning late-term abortions: it's time  (July 20, 2012)

Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask  (August 5, 2012)

Archbishop Miller's statement on gestational abortion legislation (September 7, 2012)

Gestational Legislation: a morally sound strategy (March 21, 2013) 

Why does Canada have no laws protecting unborn children?

I'm looking at two documents. One is American, and is called A reason to celebrate: 80+ pro-life laws passed this year.

The second is Canadian, and is called "Striving for a pro-life law".

I look at one, and then the other. I ask myself, what's wrong with this picture? Why do the Americans have pro-life laws and we do not?

The “reason to celebrate” article details pro-life legal successes in the United States this year, of which there were many. Like Nebraska's ban last year on late-term abortions. Like outlawing abortions after 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy in Kansas Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, and Oklahoma. In fact, US state legislatures have passed more than 80 bills this year, restricting access to abortion, up from 23 such laws enacted last year.

Wow, I thought, how wonderful.

Then I look back at the other paper: "Striving for a pro-life law" written by Campaign Life Coalition.

I realize that Canada has accomplished nothing to create legal protection for the unborn. We have no laws. We have no successes. None. After more that 20 years.

What are we doing wrong?

So I start reading CLC's paper to see if they can answer this question. CLC describes themselves as:

"Canadian national pro-life organization working at all levels of government to secure full legal protection for all human beings from conception to natural death."

The paper provides background on the topic of legal protection, and two different definitions of possible legal protection.

First, is what CLC calls “Compromise” legislation, and they define this as:

“any type of legislation that would explicitly or implicitly accept or admit that killing any category or class of unborn children as lawful, or that unborn children may be lawfully killed in any specified circumstances, whether or not the existing law already permits abortion in these cases. This would include gestational legislation permitting an abortion to be committed based on the age of the developing human being. An example would be legislation that would prohibit all abortions after 15 weeks gestation. This would at the same time be legislative approval for all abortions up to that date.”

CLC seems to be saying in this example, that because such a law would only protect babies older than 15 weeks gestation, and not those under 15 weeks, that such a law would condone abortion for babies under 15 weeks. Therefore, CLC would not support this type of legislation.

Okay, I understand that viewpoint.

But then I say to myself, but our current legal situation is such that abortion is already legally sanctioned for all babies under 15 weeks and older than 15 weeks. So if we had a law that protected those babies over 15 weeks, at least some of the existing inequity would be solved, right? Some babies would be protected. Isn't that better than no babies?

Then CLC gives their definition of an “Incremental Law”. They believe this is:

“any type of law, other than compromising legislation, which would help to stop or curtail abortion or would help to generate a culture of respect for human life, from conception to natural death. An example would be one carefully crafted legislation making it illegal to coerce a woman into having an abortion”.

(Many pro-life people say that CLC’s definition of "compromise" law is really "incremental" law because they see each incremental gain as adding more and more protection to the unborn, one step at a time.)

Last year MP Rod Bruinooge introduced Roxanne's Law, a Bill that would make coercing an abortion a criminal offence. So I wondered, did CLC support this bill? Well Jim Hughes, president of CLC, seemed to say they did.

But then the Interim reported this:

"CLC also took exception with the wording of the bill that conceded the permissibility of abortion (Section 4), that states it "does not apply in the case of a physician who attempts to convince a pregnant female person to have a medical intervention that results, or may result in the death of the child when, in the physician's best medical judgement, that medical intervention is necessary to prevent a serious threat to the female person's physical health." Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women. He told The Interim that he wished that Section 4 was not in C-510."

Again, this is a situation where it is already legal to abort all children, so a law such as C-510 would improve what we currently have today. Isn’t that progress?

Then I asked myself if CLC isn't happy with such laws as these two examples, maybe they should propose some laws themselves? They could in fact even provide the exact wording of a law that they could support, and find an MP willing to table that law.

If they were to come up with such an “Incremental” law as they define it, as long as it would have broad public support, maybe Canada could finally move forward in legally protecting the unborn.

How do we get from where we are now, to our goal of full legal protection, if we don't take small incremental steps along the way? It seems to me that we can't get there from here if we continue on the path we've chosen so far.

We need to work together constructively. We need to propose bills that all pro-life people can support. More important I think, we need to get the people in the mushy middle on side too. How about banning all abortions over 24 weeks? Even the most extreme pro-choicers would have difficultly publicly saying they didn't support such a bill.

I don't think "striving for a pro-life law" will get us anywhere until we change our strategy. It was Albert Einstein who gave us his definition of Insanity:

"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It's been over 20 years since the Morgentaler decision and we've still had no successes in bringing forth any laws to restrict abortions. The United States has. We have to do something different.

More on abortion incrementalism

MaryCatherine said:
"I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510."

I replied to her comment with this:

This link shows how numerous pro-lifers opposed the bill. One in particular is Geoff Cauchi, who as this article says, is an adviser to Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). Cauchi is also president of Alliance for Life Ontario (AFLO) and AFLO never came out in support of the bill. This article also says that "Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women":
http://www.theinterim.com/features/bill-c-510-creates-controversy-within-pro-life-community/

CLC later said that CLC recommended MPs vote for C-510, but that CLC wanted to amend the wording of the Bill when it went to committee. In other words, they did not support the bill as it was written. They wanted it to go to committee so it could be changed to their liking. And how realistic would that be, given how many pro-abortion MPs we have in Canada? See this link:
http://www.lsn.ca/news/first-hour-of-debate-on-roxannes-law-takes-place-in-canadian-parliament/

See these two articles by Cauchi as well, they are long, but leave no doubt that Cauchi did not support Bill-C510:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_1037.shtml
http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/abortion/article_1091.shtml

I can only conclude from all of this, that there really wasn't the necessary support--at least not from the "political arm of the pro-life movement"--that would have helped the bill to pass. Given the pro-abortion opposition we face, it takes a lot more enthusiastic and active support than this to have any chance of success.

The following groups did campaign proactively in support of c-510:

Priests For Life Canada,
http://www.priestsforlifecanada.com/English/News_Events/Roxannes_Law/Roxannes_Law_Parish_Letter_EN.pdf

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada,
http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/action-items/current-action-requests/966-1-action-item-support-bill-c-510-roxannes-law

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=7516

4MyCanada
http://4mycanada.ca/Emails/

And yes you are correct, the Bill was defeated in the House of Commons. Canada still has no legal restrictions on abortion.

Abortion incrementalism

I love the Americans. They talk about abortion. A lot.

Every day, day in and day out, my Google alerts tell me this. Americans are always blogging about abortion and there are always new abortion laws in the works.

But Google alerts hardly ever show abortion discussion in Canada. And as far as new abortion laws...well of course...we have no abortion laws. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And every time an MP introduces any bill that would in any way restrict abortion, well the government comes out and says it won't support the bill. Like what happened with Roxanne's Law introduced last year by MP Rod Bruinooge. (Bill C-510 which would have provided additional protection to a woman from being coerced into having an abortion she didn't choose to have.)

Fine. If Stephen Harper doesn't want to support private member's bills on abortion, that's his choice. Hopefully his refusal to debate, discuss or even think about abortion, doesn't affect how other MPs vote. Because clearly such bills are a matter of conscience.

But what I can't understand is this. Why would we get opposition to such a bill from people who are actually in the pro-life community?

Apparently it's because some people are against the philosophy, that if we can't protect all babies, well then, they won't support a law that would protect only some babies.

In other words, some pro-life people do not support abortion incrementalism.

Here are two excellent discussions on this idea of abortion incrementalism (from an American of course), Dr. Gerard M. Nadal here and here.

The way I see it, is this. The next time a back bench MP introduces a private member's bill on the subject matter of abortion, we have two options:

A) We all support such a bill that restricts abortion in some way. We save some lives. (a recent poll commissioned by Sun Media taken by Abacus Poll Inc told us that 27% of Canadians believe that human life should be protected from the moment of conception, 21% believe human life should be protected after three months of pregnancy, 11% believe human life should be protected after six months of pregnancy. So we know that there would be public support for such a bill)
or
B) We wait for that perfect law that criminalizes all abortions.

I say we choose option A. At least some of our pre-born children might have a fighting chance at life.

Or, we can wait for option B. But just between you, me, the lamppost and this side of heaven--it isn't going to happen.

Crippling free speech on campus and in Parliament

(An edited version of this article appeared in the March/April 2011 issue of LifeCanada News)

There is a disturbing parallel between what is happening to university pro-life clubs, and politicians’ refusal to debate abortion in Parliament. In both cases, those in authority are censoring freedom of speech and freedom of expression as it relates to abortion.

In an interview with CBC's Peter Mansbridge in January, Stephen Harper was asked if his government received a majority in the next election, whether he would "reopen the abortion issue". Mr. Harper responded:
"No, no, no. Look Peter, I've spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party have passionate views, they're all over the map, and you know what I say to people...as you know, many people I know are pro-life...what I say to people, is if you want to diminish the number of abortions you've got to change hearts and not laws, and I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law."

But Mr. Harper doesn't seem to get it. Changing laws, and the necessary debate that the legislative process involves, is actually a very powerful mechanism for changing hearts, as one of Canada's most vocal abortion proponents herself admitted.

A few years ago MP Ken Epp introduced a bill C-484 in Parliament, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act (1). The bill created heated discussion in the media, both from the pro-life side and from the pro-choice side. Many so-called "pro-choicers" argued vigorously against the bill, most notably, Joyce Arthur, head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Arthur let slip her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 when she said:
"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion".(2)

Arthur was worried about what effect legal recognition of the value of the fetus would have on the public's perception of abortion, even though Bill C-484 did not in any way criminalize consensual abortion. The bill only offered protection to the pre-born child in one very narrow circumstance (i.e., when the pregnant mother is the victim of a crime and her baby is intentionally harmed as well).

But Arthur was afraid such a law would do exactly what Mr. Harper said, and hearts would be changed against abortion.

Even if a law on the subject matter of abortion does not in fact pass, the discussion and debate it generates is a crucial means to changing hearts. It is difficult to fathom the Prime Minister not recognizing this connection.

Now let’s look at what is happening to pro-life groups on university campuses, and the latest pro-life group casualty, Carleton’s Lifeline. This is just one more campus pro-life group, in a long line of many, which is being silenced across our country.

Last fall these pro-life students were charged with two counts of trespassing each: one count of engaging in prohibited activity and one count of failing to leave the premises when asked.

Why were they charged? Because they planned to display the Genocide Awareness Project (the GAP exhibit compares abortion to historically recognized forms of genocide) at Tory Quad, a large outdoor area on campus with high traffic.

Lifeline is now suing the University (3). Lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos says about the lawsuit:
"If universities begin to censor students on the basis of their political belief, universities will become centres of indoctrination as opposed to centres of learning. Freedom of expression on a university campus is essential to its integrity.”

So why did CUSA want to prevent Lifeline from showing the GAP project?

It's the truth behind those pictures. Graphically showing abortion destroys the euphemistic label "pro-choice". A picture really is worth a thousand words: "Pro-choice"=bloody killed fetus. There really is no nice way to say this. If University students see these pictures, they see the truth--the result of abortion. They do not see "pro-choice".

If CUSA allows Lifeline to show these graphic depictions of abortion, young impressionable university students might turn against abortion. They might have a change of heart.

CUSA and other anti-prolife student unions are learning from our political leaders that censorship and quashing of debate on abortion is acceptable. This disturbing ripple effect encourages students to discriminate against pro-life students because some people have decided they don't like the message.

We reap (in our universities) what we sow (in our Parliament).

Canadians must become engaged in the political process at all levels. Because censoring debate, whether in Parliament or on university campuses--is not freedom of speech. And it is not democracy.

(1) This bill would have created a separate offense for intentionally harming or killing an unborn child during the commission of an offense against the child's mother. The bill passed at Second Reading in the spring of 2008, but it died before it could get to the Third Reading vote because an election was called in the fall of 2008.
2) "Fetal rights stir debate on abortion," by Charles Lewis, National Post, March 1, 2008
3) Statement of claim http://carletonlifeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/statement-of-claim.pdf

MPs need to be accountable to the people

Maybe it's just me, but why aren't MPs more accountable to their constituents? The fact that they seem to be accountable to anyone but their constituents, came through loud and clear for me during the recent Private Member's Bill Roxanne's Law, Bill C-510. This bill would have offered women additional protection from abortion coercion. How could any reasonable human being be against such a bill?

Let me tell you, and I'll start with my own MP, Mauril Belanger.

I sent Mr. Belanger two emails asking him to vote for the Bill because, well, he is my MP. Both emails were ignored until the day after the vote when I finally received a reply. It said in part:
"My colleague Hon. Marlene Jennings...was against this proposed legislation. Being of the same opinion I voted accordingly…Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office has also indicated that it does not support this legislation."

Does this mean that Mr. Belanger answers to Ms. Jennings? Or does it mean he answers to Mr. Harper? Or does he answer to himself? Because I'm pretty confused. I thought MPs answered to their constituents. Ms. Belanger doesn't say anything about his constituents wanting him to vote for, or against the bill.

Then there was the new rookie MP, Bob Sopuck from Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette Manitoba, who was brought into the House of Commons for the very first time on the day of the vote. Mr. Sopuck is a Conservative MP who, from what I understand, represents a strongly pro-life riding. He also voted against the bill. Has Mr. Sopuck been assimilated into the Harper-never-discuss-abortion bunch that quickly? Uh oh, that was fast.

Then we have four stalwart so called "pro-choice" MPs, Jean Crowder, Nicole Demers, Marlene Jennings and Irene Mathyson, who were absolutely indignant during the first debate that Mr. Bruinooge dared discuss abortion in the House of Commons. What was he thinking? Oh, democracy, right.

Ms. Demers was "ashamed" to be involved in a Parliament where pro-life MPs "lie to women who need help". Lie? Strong unsubstantiated claim there, Ms. Demers. She also didn't like it that men were deciding what was good for women. If I had to choose between pro-life men and pro-abortion women, I'll go with the men, thanks.

Then Ms. Crowder referred four times during the same debate, to a radical pro-abortion group, the Abortions Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). ARCC's pro-abortion coordinator Joyce Arthur, is the same person who praised a, need-to-have-their-mouth-washed-out-with-soap blogger who called Mr. Bruinooge names unfit to print, or repeat. Does Ms. Crowder get her marching orders from these pro-abortions? I hope not.

Let us remind ourselves what we were talking about here. This was a bill to protect women from being coerced into having an abortion she did not want or choose to have. All of these MPs voted against this bill. And by no means am I pointing fingers at just these six MPs. There were another 172 MPs who also voted against the bill.

A common criticism of Roxanne's Law was that abortion coercion is already illegal. But legal counsel for the EFC Faye Sonier dismissed that argument--and many other arguments against the bill, here and here.

The "pro-choice" people used to always say "every child a wanted child". Conversely, and I don't mean to be flippant here, but shouldn't every abortion be a wanted abortion? So why would 2/3 of our MPs vote against a bill that bans no abortions, except coerced ones? That--is not “pro-choice”.

Are MPs afraid to go against Mr. Harper's repeated mantra of not reopening the abortion debate? If so, why? Because if this is the case, democracy is very ill and hopes for its recovery are not good.

It's time to make MPs accountable to us, and not every Nicole, Marlene and Stephen.

When pro-abortion MPs don't speak for us, we need to say so

During the parliamentary debate on November 1 on Bill C-510 ("Roxanne's Law"), there were five female MPs who spoke on the bill. Only one woman, Conservative MP Kelly Block, spoke in support of Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill. The other four female MPs who spoke, were all against the bill.

If passed, this bill would bring about additional legal protection for those women who don't want the abortions others are trying to impose on them. It would protect a woman's right to say "no" to abortion.

What concerns me as a Canadian woman, is when female pro-abortion MPs assume they speak for all women. They do not. MP Nicole Demers (who is against the bill) stated: "Men are trying to decide what is good for us". Well I can tell you, Ms. Demers, you will not decide what is good for me.

MP Jean Crowder (also against the bill) quoted the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada numerous times in her remarks against Bill C-510. ARCC is an extremist pro-abortion organization whose chief advocate is Joyce Arthur. Ms. Arthur is the same person whose other radical pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network received a $27,400 government grant to write a scathing report condemning crisis pregnancy centres in BC. No, Ms. Crowder, you do not speak for me either.

In fact, Ms. Demers and Ms. Crowder and Ms. Irene Mathyson and Ms. Marlene Jennings; none of you speak for me.

Unfortunately there are almost no women in our Canadian Parliament who are prepared to stand up for pregnant women who want to keep their babies. But there are many, many female MPs who will vociferously defend women who want to have abortions, even to the extent of needlessly sacrificing the safety and security and emotional health of those women who want to continue their pregnancies.

I say "needlessly," because there is no need to oppose Roxanne's Law in order to maintain legal access to abortion for those women who want it. With C-510 in place, abortion would still be completely legal for any reason, throughout a woman's entire pregnancy.

These pro-abortion MPs say they think the abortion debate is over. They pretend to be confused as to why we would discuss anything related to abortion. The reason is simple. Democracy is always a trump card.

MP Kelly Block, on the other hand, has demonstrated courage, compassion and integrity. She stood up in our Canadian Parliament and spoke on behalf of those pregnant women who want to bring their pre-born children safely to term.

Thank you Ms. Block. You speak for me.

Thank you for your courage

November 3, 2010

Dear Ms. Block,

I would like to thank you for your principled stand on Monday in the House of Commons, when you chose to stand up and support Mr. Bruinooge's Bill C-510 that would allow a woman to press charges if she is coerced into an unwanted abortion.

Even though the pro-abortions in the House such as, Ms. Nicole Demers, Ms. Irene Mathyssen, Ms. Marlene Jennings, Ms. Jean Crowder and others, would prefer to shut down our democracy by not having any debate whatsoever about abortion, I can take comfort in knowing that there is at least one woman in the House of Commons, in my Parliament, in my country, who will speak for the unborn and who will also speak for me, a woman.

It is so tragic that the pro-abortions insist on telling us that they speak for women. Because they do not. They do not speak for me, and they most certainly do not speak for the children in our country who never get the chance to become a woman; to become a man; to become a Canadian citizen.

Even though I am only one small voice, I will support you in what you are doing in this great country of ours. And I will support all MPs who stand up for what is right, for what is moral, and for what will protect the most defenseless of our citizens.

I pray that other MPs will have the courage to follow your strong leadership and will also support Roxanne's Law.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
cc Mr. Rob Nicholson, Justice Minister
Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Mr. Rod Bruinooge, Chair of the Pro-Life Caucus

Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510

Why, as a Catholic, I cannot support Bill C-510 By Geoffrey F. Cauchi, LL.B. Issue: October 2010
It is disturbing that Geoffrey Cauchi has publicly come out against Bill C-510 Roxanne's law, a bill that would make it a criminal offense for anyone to coerce a woman to abort her unborn child. This is a positive pro-life bill because it will protect some babies. It will protect a woman who decides to keep her baby. It does this by allowing her to press charges against someone who tries to coerce her to abort.

(Mr. Cauchi's article also notes that: "the opinions expressed in this article are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the pro-life organizations of which he is a member or leader." This may be so, but Mr. Cauchi is the president of Alliance for Life Ontario. Therefore the optics of his non-support for this bill will be very influential on the pro-life community, even if these are only his personal opinions.)

It does not need to be stated that Canada has no abortion law and that an abortion can be legally procured in Canada at any time during the nine month pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. All pro-lifers are extremely well aware of this fact. We also know from past experience that all attempts to enact limitations on abortion have met with zero success. It's time to make some progress.

Mr. Cauchi says that according to Catholic teaching:
"if a proposed Bill is an intrinsically unjust law, it cannot, in good conscience, be publicly supported by Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium. In the Papal Encyclical, Evangelium vitae (EV, 73.2), Pope John Paul II, citing section 22 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), confirmed long-standing Church teaching when he said: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” (the “No Exceptions Statement”)."

Mr. Cauchi then goes on to make his case that this is an unjust law, essentially because some unborn children will not be saved. Yet saving the lives of some of our children is better than condemning all of the aborted ones. Bill C-510 will do this.

With all due respect to Mr. Cauchi, he is a banking lawyer and not a moral theologian. I must therefore defer to what the moral theologians and ethicists have to say on the subject of incrementalism in abortion. I refer the reader to an article written by William E. May, “The Misinterpretation of John Paul II’s Teaching in Evangelium vitae n.73,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Winter 2006, Vol. 6 No. 4. p. 705. Mr. May makes some key observations on incrementalism. Here are some excerpts:

On page 705:
"In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, John Paul II takes up a "particular problem of conscience" that can occur "[when] a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on" (n. 73). He then makes the following most important statement: In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil effect. (n. 73)"

On page 707:
"But John Paul II judges that the kind of political decisions which can be licit do not have as their moral objects permitting or authorizing abortions, or the intentional killing of unborn children. Rather, the object that morally specifies the legislator’s act in this situation is to extend the protection of law to the lives of unborn children who are not protected under existing legislation or under alternative proposed legislation, which this legislation is intended to replace. This is evidently a good moral object."

On Page 713:
"Ratzinger writes: According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as is possible. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment.19"

A few months ago Cardinal Ouellette and Archbishop Prendergrast said in a CTV interview:
"I think we need to look at the issue of how many abortions there are in our country and so Cardinal Ouellet and I last week took the tact of saying, look alright we aren’t going to change the law at present anyway, so let’s do something about reducing the number. If everyone says there should be as few abortions as possible, what are we doing for that? Why are we happy that the number is staying more or less static? You know in a country like this? The Cardinal gave the statistics that with 10,000,000 people in Belgium, they have fewer abortions than they have in Quebec where they have 8,000,000 people. Why is that? Who would not be opposed to reducing the number of abortions? (emphasis added) I don't think anybody...Well we would like to change the law, I would like to change the law and at least put some restrictions on it at least something like you have in Belgium where after the first trimester there aren’t any abortions or generally there aren’t any."

We can reduce the number of abortions by supporting bill C-510. Once we have some protection for the unborn, we know the job isn't finished--we will then move on to the next bill. If we insist on waiting for the perfect bill that completely eliminates all abortions, and decide that is the only acceptable objective, our children will continue to be destroyed.

If an incremental bill can save one child of the 100,000 killed each year through abortion, this bill will have been worth it.