RCMP must finally investigate born-alive abortions

Campaign Life Coalition is asking for the RCMP to open up an investigation into the tragedy of abortions that result in the live birth of a child. These children are born alive and left to die.

'Data from Statistics Canada and from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a government-controlled reporting body, show that abortion attempts were made against the lives of these babies in regulated Canadian medical facilities. The data shows that these babies survived these assaults, that they were born alive, and then they died'

In 2021-2022 alone there were 149 of these tragic live born deaths from abortion.

MP Maurice Vellacott also asked the RCMP look into this in 2013. At the time Commissioner Bob Paulson refused to investigate these deaths; it seems he allowed his pro-abortion ideaology to get in the way of impartiality:

"Your assertion that some, any or all of these occurrences constitute a crime requires an untenable contortion of the Criminal Code far removed from the legal consequences of the Morgentaler decision and the reality of a quarter century of deliberate Parliamentary inaction.'

Hopefully Commissioner Mike Duheme will do the right thing and finally investigate these horrific deaths.

Pro-aborts have the money - pro-lifers have the truth

I am totally invigorated. This is pro-life week in Ottawa. That's with or without Jim Watson's proclamation, which I'm pretty sure we won't be getting this year. Tomorrow is the annual March for Life.

Last night I was blessed to attend the second showing of the movie Unplanned. It was even better the second time around. Watching it again, I really understand why the pro-aborts don't want this film shown in Canada. It will change people's mind about abortion. The pro-abortions don't want that to happen. Abortion is big money. Planned Parenthood is backed by big money. Warren Buffett donates to Planned Parenthood. Bill Gates donates to Planned Parenthood. The Clinton Foundation donates to Planned Parenthood. You get the picture.

After the last showing I read the pro-aborts' tweets where they propagated their usual nonsense that the movie was full of lies. It isn't. I find that kind of funny actually. The pro-aborts just lie so much they don't even know anymore they are lying. I think they might actually believe their lies. Funny but sad.

A little bit of what Abby Johnson told us taken from my notes.

"The Truth offends. They [the pro-aborts] don't worry about offending us, so why should we worry about offending them? We need to speak the truth. Be honest. We must tell our personal stories. We should not be afraid. I don't live in fear. Maybe that's a grace. I am not interested in their [the pro-abort's] opinions of me. I don't walk in fear. Fear is so cumbersome. Fear is what drives people into the abortion clinic. And when you ask God for something watch out... 

When I went to the Episcopal Church it was very pro-choice. The pastor would send women to me. [The church] used their religious beliefs to promote abortion. They would pray at the opening of Planned Parenthood's buildings. When I turned [on Planned Parenthood] I was told I couldn't go to my church anymore. Or to any Episcopal Church in America. My new friends were all Catholic. [Abby then speaks about her conversion to the Catholic faith]. I am also being called to be an apologist for my faith. As long as you are on the side of the Lord you are on the side of truth."

(Abby's organization And Then There Were None)

And that's why I am so hopeful. I needed to be reminded by Abby that we have the truth on our side. The pro-abortions do not. That is why the pro-aborts simply do not stand a chance. We don't have the money big abortion has. But we have the truth.

From Archbishop Thomas Prendergast:

From Action Life:

Pierre Trudeau: abortion not enshrined in Charter

Reprinted with permission from CLC

September 29, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I expect you will appreciate my bringing to your attention, some very serious allegations you are frequently making, in regard to abortion.

Abortion is not a ‘Charter right’, and it is not a ‘human right’.

In the early 1980’s, Campaign Life Coalition worked very hard to have the right to life enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Prime Minister at the time, your father, assured us that the Charter would have no impact on the abortion question.

In a letter regarding a suggested amendment, dated July 6, 1981, to Archbishop MacNeil of Edmonton, the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Prime Minister wrote: “The arguments advanced to show that the Charter will create an entitlement to abortion on demand have been clearly refuted in the opinion given by the Department of Justice. In my view, the need of an amendment has not been clearly demonstrated.”

Earlier, in June 1981, the Prime Minister stated: “Because the public is evenly divided on the subject of abortion it was the government’s ‘considered view’ that a position favouring one side should not be enshrined in the charter. The Government feels the issue is not one which should be defended by the Constitution.”

Over the years, your father's words have proven to be true, as abortion has never been declared to be a ‘Charter right’ by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Court has specifically held that there is a legitimate right for Parliament to legislate on the issue, should it so choose.

Additionally, for as long as the United Nations has existed, consensus has never been reached on the issue of abortion as a human right. Where abortion is alluded to in agreed conclusions (non-binding normative documents which are adopted at various UN commissions), it is cast in a negative light. For example, states should discourage abortion, it should not be promoted as a method of birth control and it should be exclusively addressed in national legislation. Although several UN agencies may agree with you, the majority of the 193 member states that make up the United Nations do not share your personal view that abortion is a human right.

It was quite clear by the authors of the Charter and continues to be clear by the United Nations that abortion isn’t a ‘right’, and it is unbecoming for the Prime Minister of Canada today, to deliberately utter a falsehood and to keep repeating it.

In future, we respectfully request that you refrain from either stating or implying that abortion is a ‘Charter right’, a ‘human right’ and is synonymous with ‘women’s rights’ as it is clearly not.

Regards,



Jim Hughes
National President
Campaign Life Coalition

Patrick Brown and his under the bus philosophy

It's people like Patrick Brown who give politicians a bad name:

“Frankly, I’m very comfortable with the fact there’s been a falling out. I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that  and Campaign Life are upset,” the PC leader said, adding he now regrets voting against same-sex marriage and abortion when he was a Conservative MP. 

“If Charles McVety wants his ten bucks back for membership, he can have it. If he wants to vote for someone else, he can vote for someone else, so be it,” he said. 

“Frankly, I think they take more credit for any part of my leadership campaign than is merited. I went out and signed up 45,000 members.”

Back in December 2014, I sent an email to a couple of politicians expressing my concern over the Liberals sex-ed curriculum. Almost immediately after I sent the email, Patrick Brown emailed me back from his personal email address (like he did to CLC) asking me for my phone number. I gave it to him and he called me back. He told me in no uncertain terms that he was against the sex-ed curriculum. I asked him at the time if he was also concerned about the Liberals decision to hide abortion information. He told me he was for open access to information, although any further emails I sent him on this subject, remained unanswered (that should have been my first clue to PB's philosophy).

I subsequently bought a membership for myself and my husband and we voted for him for the leadership, which he won. I know many many others who did the same.

It's pretty easy to tell people what they want to hear if you if you don't need to worry about keeping your promises. Because once you've won, well there isn't much they can do about it is there?

Did Patrick Brown sign up 45,000 members? Or did we do it for him?

And Patrick? Johnathon Van Maren has some good advice for you:

"Social conservatives, as I’ve written before, are not numerous enough to single-handedly put someone in office. However, we are numerous enough to ruin the career of someone like Patrick Brown, who has managed to lie to us, betray us, call us intolerant bigots, and then shruggingly suggest we vote for someone else in the confidence that we won’t. If we keep letting politicians like Patrick Brown treat us like that, we are simply ensuring that no politician will ever take us seriously, because they can have their cake and eat it too—they can get so-con votes while telling the Toronto downtown elites that they think we’re kind of repulsive. I think it’s time for social conservatives to show that we care more about putting someone Conservative in power. We have real concerns that need to be addressed, and if Patrick Brown is an impediment to that, then we should treat him as such."

Good luck Patrick in trying to get anyone to believe you ever again. I think you're going to need it.

Priests for Life Canada support incremental legislation

Priests for Life Canada supports incremental legislation. They also support the weneedaLAW.ca campaign.



As far as I know Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Canada still do not support incremental legislation. It's too bad they don't.

It would be nice if we could all work together to obtain some legal limits for the pre-born children of this country. I would love to see a ban on late-term-abortions in Canada. Or on sex-selection abortions. Of course we will continue to work for accomplishing this. With CLC and AFLO, or without them.

Bishops said we must protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible

I have just read the Bishop's statement that CLC refers to in this entry.

CLC states in their statement that the Bishops said this:

“We are particularly relieved that the gestational approach has been rejected. The concept is offensive and unprincipled because it presumes that human life is more worthy of protection at one stage than at another".

What CLC doesn't say, is the other pertinent statements about the Bishops' thoughts on gestational legislation. All emphasis are mine.

"While Catholics may not favor abortion or any proposal which seeks to weaken existing legal protection of the unborn child. Nor may they advocate that there be no legal protection. However, when it is the only available or feasible political option, support may be given to legislation which attempts, if only imperfectly, to restore protection or strengthen existing protection. In this case, they must continue to work for complete protection and to express publicly their opposition to abortion.

As we already know with our current 9 month abortion law, a gestational law of any length, although "imperfect" would be "feasible".

The Bishops continue:

Questions as to the feasibility and whether the legislation improves or worsens the legal position of the unborn child, are always matters of prudential judgment where certitude is not possible.

In a country as diversified as ours, in matters of religion and ideology, Catholic politicians must assess the legal and political realities they face and work for the law which will provide the maximum possible protection for unborn children."

This is exactly what a gestational law would accomplish: the "maximum possible protection for unborn children" given that a total ban on abortion would not be accepted by the country.

And this:

"We urge your Committee to draft a law which will protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible. It is understood, however, that as bishops, it is not our role to suggest in detail the best possible legislative solution..."

Now this is interesting. At the end of the Bishop's statement, CLC/AFLO makes its own comments on Bill C-43, saying this:

"Finally, Bill C-43 sets no time restrictions on “terminating pregnancies” and is, therefore, worse than a Bill which would have restricted abortions to 12 or 16 or 20 weeks of gestation. In fact, Bill C-43 is the worst gestational law possible.

CLC is saying they would prefer (at that time in 1991) a limit at 12 or 16 or 20 weeks gestation over no limit. Yet we have no limit today. Therefore CLC should (by their own words) accept a 12 or 16 or 20 week limit. In fact, the reality is that today, we already have a gestational law. And that gestational limit is the point in gestation when the baby is born, i.e. at the end of gestation, and so a 12 or 16 or 20 week gestational limit is far preferable than our current gestational limit of 40 weeks.

Then CLC ends with this self fulfilling prophesy:

"In view of these facts, the pro-life groups said, it is better to continue without a law while working for a pro-life one, with government help, or otherwise by means of private member bills, or through elections. In the meanwhile pro-lifers can maintain a conscience untarnished by surrender or submission to evil. And from the point of view of political tactics, supporting this bill is equivalent to ending pro-life legislation for the next 10-20 years or more, because every politician in the country will claim that it was the best attainable and refuse to do anything more."

Well we've surpassed the 10-20 years, in fact it will be about 24 years and counting...

Right now abortion is already legal for all nine months. Gestational legislation is a lot better than what we have now. According to CLC's philosophy, we are guaranteed to wait forever for something to change.

On the whole of it, I believe that CLC has taken the Bishop's statements on gestational legislation out of context.

CLC says that spiritual leaders not well formed on life issues

CLC issued this official statement today: Campaign Life Coalition and Gestation Legislation

Notice this statement, which I don't agree with:

"The Canadian pro-life movement must continue focusing on prayer as the essential core of the work, and educating spiritual leaders. Sadly, the majority of the latter are neither as knowledgeable nor as well formed as one would expect on the issues affecting life and family.

I believe many of our spiritual leaders are very well formed, like Cardinal Ouellet, Cardinal Collins Archbishop Miller, and the Priests at Priest For Life Canada, to name but a few.

And this statement which I also don't agree with:

"Regular church goers tell us that they never hear a talk, a sermon or a homily educating the faithful on crucial life and family issues."

Our priests at our Parish do speak out on Life issues regularly. And this year our Pastor went to the abortion defund rally, attended Life Chain and 40 days for life. He also spoke about these events, and arranged car pooling for parishioners.

(Update: My last entry on the CLC/AFLO position here)

Gestational abortion laws are not immoral

This week I came across a joint statement by Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario. It was titled "WHY THE CASE FOR GESTATIONAL ABORTION LAWS IS MORALLY AND LOGICALLY INCOHERENT".

The title of the document sent off warning bells for me. I--along with many other pro-life people and pro-life organizations--am in favour of gestational, or incremental abortion laws.

The statement says that a gestational law is "intrinsically evil", and that a "gestational law is immoral". If this is true, then I would be a supporter of something both intrinsically evil and immoral. This is not the case.

As I continued to read the joint statement, I became more and more disturbed. The document itself isn't on line, but I'd like to quote a few paragraphs from it.

"we will never propose or support a gestational abortion law for Canada. We will never conclude that we must accept what is intrinsically evil so that some good may be achieved. Specifically, we reject the argument made to us by some pro-lifers that the faint and unrealistic prospect of the right to life of some unborn children being recognized in the Criminal Code of Canada at the current time justifies setting aside our longstanding opposition to affirming, in the same law, that some other unborn children may be lawfully killed." 

"A deliberate decision to propose, support, or vote for a gestational abortion law is a behaviour that is in itself immoral. Even if such a law might have some good effects, we can always refrain from engaging in such conduct altogether when to do so would itself not be immoral. If serious harm results from our refusal to participate in such conduct, we are not morally responsible for such consequences because no one can be morally required to sin. Our goal of establishing in civil law the right to life of all unborn children does not justify our use of evil means to accomplish that goal." 

"To counsel another person to choose an action as the lesser of two evils is immoral if both are moral evils, especially if the alleged “lesser evil” is an intrinsic evil." 

"We simply observe that a gestational abortion law would still affirm that a sub-class of unborn children may be lawfully killed, regardless of the motives of any particular legislator who may have voted for it, or of any pro-life activist who supported its enactment."

I respect a point of view different from my own. I believe that two people fighting for the same cause--the legal protection of pre-born children--can adhere to different strategies and ways of achieving the same end. For me to respect your viewpoint doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and vice versa. Both strategies are valid, and neither is morally or intrinsically evil.

I don't believe it is at all helpful though, for a pro-life organization to come out and attack another pro-life world view.

What is also troubling, is that this is an organizational statement, and not simply the view of a single person. It demeans and marginalizes pro-lifers who do not subscribe to CLC/AFLO's position.

This statement implicitly judges me as being immoral and supporting intrinsic evil. I am not and I do not. I am confident that my views are perfectly in line with Cardinal Collins, Archbishop Miller, Priests for Life Canada, and my own spiritual director who is a Jesuit Priest and Canon Lawyer.

The other concern is that the statement can lead people--who might otherwise support gestational legislation--away from supporting a gestational approach, because they wrongly assume that if two large pro-life groups believe it to be wrong, then it must be wrong. This is very troubling indeed.

I believe in gestational legislation. Others do not. My conscience and my respected religious leaders agree with me. If others do not believe in gestational legislation as a valid strategy, that is fine. But making up reasons that are untrue to argue one's case, is not the way to persuade others to your viewpoint.

Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask

There's a really good debate going on over at LifeSiteNews on abortion incrementalism. It is in response to two articles posted there:

Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

Now it is interesting to note that both these articles criticize a gestational approach to limiting abortion in Canada, and to date I have never read an article at LifeSiteNews in favour of the gestational approach. That being said, the debate is going on is spite of this, through readers who are commenting for, and against, this approach.

What struck me about the comments, is that many people think that Canada has no abortion law, because we have no statute law, per se, that restricts abortion.

But as one commenter, "Jeaneanne1306" points out, in 10 different ways, Canada does have an abortion law.

Here are excerpts from "Jeaneanne1306" comments for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions.

You can read the full discussion at the links provided.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

"1) Jeananne1306

Some commenters have been saying that Canada has no abortion law. Actually Canada DOES have an abortion law...and it is a completely PERMISSIVE one. The law is the sum total of our statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code which excludes preborn children from the law's protection via section 223) and the Supreme Court rulings (most notably the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code.) There are also provincial laws: the Access to Abortion Services Act in BC; abortion is mentioned in the NB Medical Services Act regarding funding; abortion also made it's way into an Ontario statute earlier this year (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), where abortion was given a special status over and above any other 'medical service' in the province; there may be other provincial laws as well.

2) Jeananne1306

In the Canadian context, a law that would simply restrict abortion (what some people call "incremental" laws or "imperfect" laws, whether a gestational limit or some other type of restriction) is not a "compromise." A compromise can only happen if each side gives up something to the other side. A bill that simply restricted abortion in some way, and didn't make Canada's existing situation any more pro-abortion than it already is, would not be a compromise. As I understand, Priests for Life Canada's statement was about "incremental" legislation and gestational limits rather than about compromise legislation.

3) Jeananne1306

Mr. Smeaton is quoted as saying that Pope John Paul II's teaching in EV 73.3 "does not apply to bills which explicitly allow abortion in certain circumstances, which gestational bills do, since the pope had already condemned such legislation." Pope John Paul II did not actually condemn gestational legislation. What the Pope was condemning in the previous paragraph of EV 73 was a law that PERMITS abortion. A law that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada where abortion is already legally permitted right up until birth would actually PROHIBIT abortions beyond that gestational limit, thus "limiting the harm" of abortion. Thus EV 73.3 applies in the case of a bill that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada and thus can be licitly supported.

4) Jeananne1306

Today's Criminal Code permits abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy. It makes "unjust and discriminatory distinctions of children" based on whether they live inside or outside their mothers' bodies. Some would say that is unethical. If a 20-week limit bill were being voted on in Canada's Parliament, a vote in favour of such a bill is a vote against the status quo of legal abortion for the full 9 months and a vote in favour of prohibiting abortions past 20 weeks (the legal status of abortion before 20 weeks remains the same in either case.) Some people might feel they cannot in good conscience continue to allow the status quo of legal abortion right up until birth to go unchallenged."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

"5) Jeananne1306

Hopefroeurope, I don't see how saving babies past a certain gestational age is similar to negotiating with terrorists. When you negotiate with terrorists, you are giving in to their demands in exchange for something you want. However,setting a gestational limit (e.g. 20 weeks) on abortion in Canada saves the lives of babies after that age limit (something we want) without giving anything away (the babies before 20 weeks are being killed either way, with or without the gestational age limit). I'd really like to understand how you can equate this with negotiating with terrorists. Can you please explain?

6) Jeananne1306

Not necessarily, Fred. If you already had a law that said "abortion shall be permitted up to the 24th week" and you changed it to "abortion shall be permitted up to the 20th week" (thus making the law more RESTRICTIVE), then that change is a good thing. Alternatively, if you already had a law that said "Abortion shall be illegal after 16 weeks" and you changed it to say "Abortion shall be illegal after 20 weeks" (thus making the law more PERMISSIVE), then that change is a bad thing. Whether a change in the law is good or bad depends on whether the change makes the law more restrictive or more permissive than the previous law.

7) Jeananne1306

I agree with Professor Masson that it is wrong to kill some babies in order to save others. However, setting a gestational limit on abortion in Canada does NOT mean some babies will be killed in order to save others. There is no tradeoff going on, because the existing abortion law in Canada already allows ALL babies regardless of gestational age to be killed by abortion. A gestational limit will SAVE the babies that are past the gestational limit. The babies before the gestational limit are already legally being killed today, and a gestational limit does not change that.

8) Jeananne1306

I completely agree with you, hopefroeurope, we should NOT accept unethical laws. And that is precisely why some Canadians want to change Canada’s existing unethical law, the Criminal Code, which (as I have previously mentioned in comments posted earlier) permits the killing of children right up until the point of birth. And one way to improve this unethical situation is to amend the law so that it protects children at some point prior to birth by setting a gestational limit on abortion that the public would support and which could actually pass into law. If there is not the democratic support for something, it won’t pass into law. The end result would still be an unethical law because some babies would still not be protected, but the CHANGE to the law to grant protection to more children IS ethical, because it limits the harm of abortion.

9) Jeananne1306

Actually, prolifeJ, we do have an abortion law. As I have already noted in response to Jeff, all of Canada's case law and statute law constitute Canada's abortion law. A notable example of case law is the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children. Section 223 of the Criminal Code excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the protection afforded by the homicide offences and other offences against "persons." So except for one narrow protection that still exists in the Criminal Code (section 238 which makes it an offence to kill a child "in the act of birth"), there is no protection for children before they are born. So our Criminal Code already codifies in law the permission to kill preborn children, i.e. abortion.

And speaking of defunding abortion, prolifeJ, would you support a law in Ontario (where almost all, if not all, abortions are currently fully funded) that would defund all abortions except in the case of rape?

10) Jeananne1306

Jeff, firstly, a law that permits abortion does exist in the Criminal Code: section 223 excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the law's protection. So in fact we already have a law that, as you say, separates those who can be killed from those who can't--and that line is drawn when the child has completely proceeded from the mother's body (i.e. the 'born alive' rule). In addition, we have case law (most notably the1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children). Canada's "abortion law" is the sum total of the statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code) and the case law. (There are also some provincial laws dealing with abortion.) What we don't have today in the Criminal Code is a RESTRICTIVE abortion law--it is a completely PERMISSIVE abortion law."

If that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.

Banning third trimester abortions

Mary Ellen Douglas from Campaign Life Coalition comments on the latest Ipsos Reid/Postmedia poll, which states that some 60% of Canadians would support an abortion law that would ban third trimester abortions.

Ms. Douglas states:
"For some to suggest that they would only like to see babies in the womb protected in the third trimester is to suggest that we should establish a pro-abortion law in the absence of any law which would allow the killing of unborn babies from the time of conception until 26 weeks."

CLC does a lot of good work, like the Annual March for Life every year, an event I strongly support. But I must respectfully disagree with Ms. Douglas on this subject.

We would not be establishing a pro-abortion law, because we already have a pro-abortion law in Canada, one of the most extreme pro-abortion laws in the world, where not one preborn child is legally protected.

Protecting preborn children after 24 or 26 weeks does not "allow" the killing of unborn babies before that time. We already allow their killing before that time, as well as after that time. A gestational law would simply put some restrictions on our existing legal abortion situation where children in all three trimesters are currently unprotected.

Ms. Douglas goes on to say that:
"Pro-life groups in countries that take a time limit approach note from experience that it is very difficult to uphold the law because unscrupulous doctors and abortion-minded women can fudge the conception date and how far the pregnancy has proceeded."

Yes people lie, it happens all the time and we can't stop people from doing so. But that isn't a reason for not engaging in the art of what is doable. As we have learned from this most recent poll, getting a broad consensus on preventing third trimester abortions in Canada is possible. Whether or not someone will lie about the gestational age of the fetus is something we cannot control, in this situation, just like we can`t control it in any situation.

At CCBR's recent presentations in Ottawa at the culmination of the New Abortion Caravan, there was a short video clip of a doctor examining a 24 week old dead fetus. I can’t get that picture out of my head.

The doctor turned this fully formed baby over a couple of times, probably examining her to ensure that all of her body parts had been removed from her mother's womb after the abortion. He then enfolded this tiny human being in a white sheet, presumably to “dispose” of her remains.

That picture will haunt me for a long time.

I would do anything to protect that tiny child. I would also like to protect all the other tiny preborn children from such a fate. But at the moment, our legal situation in Canada is that none of them are protected. With a third trimester protection law, at least some of these tiny lives would be saved because many "pro-choice" people would agree with me that, that 24 week old fetus should be protected.

Ms. Douglas ends with this:
"The pro-life movement wants to protect all human life from the time of conception to natural death. A gestational limit would give the illusion of providing some protection to a tiny number of children in the womb and send the wrong signal to the general public that abortion is restricted in any meaningful sense."

Yes the pro-life movement wants to protect life from the time of conception to natural death. And we will continue to fight for that protection. But I posit, that not advocating for what is possible [by creating third trimester legal restrictions], gives the illusion that pro-life people will only ever accept, what may never happen.

Why ‘weneedaLAW’ in Canada’s abortion debate

By John Hof

Special to The B.C. Catholic

It has been 42 years since Pierre Elliott Trudeau sent Canada down the path of liberalized abortion laws. As a result we are today the only democratic country on the planet with absolutely NO law on abortion at all.

Any unborn child, at any time during its nine months in the womb, can be aborted for any reason, or no reason at all, and 100 per cent of the costs are picked up by taxpayers.

We are in the dubious company of only North Korea and China when it comes to the status of the children in the womb. I am not at all comfortable in this company.

This shocks and dismays most Canadians, who think something needs to be done. More than 77 per cent believe there needs to be some regulation and restriction on this brutality.

A vast majority believe this can be done by addressingthe problem through legislation: making it illegal to commit abortion after some point in the pregnancy.

Therein lies the problem. We know the unborn are human from the moment of conception, and for that reason should be protected from harm by the laws of a civilized society. But how can we move from having absolutely no law to having complete protection? This is a dilemma I am sure even King Solomon would have had trouble with.

Enter into the discussion weneedaLAW.ca. This new political group announced as their mission “to build a groundswell of support among the Canadian public for federal abortion legislation.”

Some might say we in the pro-life movement have been trying to do this since the Trudeau days.

How have our effortsworked out so far? More than 4 million children have died by abortion since 1969. Maybe, just perhaps, we need to be open to a new strategy.

What makes the weneedaLAW group different? These young people are thesurvivors of abortion. They know that one-quarter of their generation have lost their lives to “choice.”

They want more than just idle words and rhetoric. They want to stop the killing in their lifetime, and they have a strategy to do it.

Naturally they need help and encouragement, and they received that when they gained an endorsement from Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB, May 16.

“Canada does need a law, and this initiative is a helpful first step toward correcting an unacceptable legislative void that is unique among democratic nations. I encourage Canadians to support it and pray for its success,”said the archbishop.

There are some who will say that unless a law protects all pre-born children in thewomb it is not good enough. I could not agree more. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where all pre-born children are at risk, and we need to start granting them protection at some point, knowing that ultimately our desire and mandate is to protect them all.

Protecting and saving some may not be “good enough,” but it is far better than having open season on all the unborn. Common sense tells us we need to start somewhere to turn back the tide.

The archbishop understands this; the youth of today understand this. It is high time all of us in the pro-life movement understood this and fell in line with this strategy.

If we don’t, we risk spending the next 40 years on the outside of the political spheres of influence. We will continue to be taken for granted by political parties and their leaders, and by individual members of  Parliament who “refuse to raise the abortion issue.” The unborn will continue to die at the rate of more than 100,000 per year.

Saving some children is not a compromise of our belief that all life is sacred. Politics is the art of the possible. Prudence says that there are opportunities to save some children in Canada.

We need to start somewhere, and the archbishop has just indicated a good place to start taking that “first step” is working with weneedaLAW.ca.

John Hof is the director of Campaign Life Coalition B.C. Reprinted with permission from the author

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.