A secretive Canadian pro-life Parliamentary caucus has decided, twenty years too late, that we need to reopen the debate on abortion . So far, however, it seems only one MP involved in the caucus, Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, has come out of the closet and publicly voiced his pro-life opinions:
“Very few Canadians appreciate the fact that essentially until a child takes its first breath, it has less value than a kidney,” says Bruinooge.
“In Canada you can’t remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it’s delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in.”
Bruinooge, you fail at coming up with analogies. How, exactly, is selling a kidney on eBay analogous to abortion?
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying that the government has no intention of reopening the debate . The Conservative Party platform does not have a position on abortion, and while they do not officially support the procedure, they won’t submit legislation limiting it, either. The pro-life movement did managed to find a back door, however, in the form of Resolution P-207 . This resolution would “ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother.” It sounds a lot like Bill C-484 , which would make killing a fetus a separate offense from the assault of a pregnant woman. Obviously, critics of the bill were quick to point out that, were this bill to pass, it would open the door for an abortion ban. It’s likely that if P-207 is proposed as a bill in Parliament, it will be met with the same criticisms, and the same fate.
Now, in the interest of being fair and democratic, I see no reason why the debate can’t be reopened. It’s definitely a controversial issue, and the are Canadians who want to see new legislation introduced; I can’t think of a good reason why we can’t discuss the issue, and I think that it’s important that all Canadians, even anti-choice Canadians, feel that their views are at the very least listened to. That being said, we in the pro-choice camp have a few things we’d like addressed, too, like ensuring that all women have guaranteed access to publicly funded abortions. At this time, there is no access to abortion in Nunavut or Prince Edward Island, no public funding for abortion in New Brunswick, and only partial funding in Quebec and Nova Scotia (source ). This is a serious problem, and reopening the debate on abortion would mean that accessibility concerns would be addressed.
Anti-choicers point out that Canada has no laws governing abortion, and that the debate should be reopened to address what they see as a glaring legal omission. As far as I’m concerned, however, that point was decided in 1988, in R. v. Morgentaler . In that case, it was decided that abortion laws were a violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee life, liberty, and the security of person. Any abortion law that would be drafted, today, would be subject to that 1988 precedent, and struck down by the courts as a Section 7 violation. I’ve got no problem with reopening the debate, because the issue’s already been decided. Abortion is something that is to be decided by a woman and her doctor, and the government can stay the fuck out.
I am concerned, however, with the secrecy surrounding this Parliamentary pro-life caucus. Why is this caucus unwilling to release the names of its members? Why are the MPs, themselves, reluctant to voice their opinions on this subject? If you’d like to reopen the debate, then its time to show your colours.
(Cross posted at the GWIRE )
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Go ahead. Reopen the debate. Just know you're gonna lose..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11177
I think reopening the debate would be a good idea, but I'm afraid of what the possible outcome might be. On the one hand, I'm all for it in order to address the issue that you highlighted: Nova Scotia, Nunavut, PEI, New Brunswick, and Quebec having no access to or limited public funding for abortion. That is a serious problem, given that Canada is definitely far more progressive in this respect than many other countries. However, reopening the debate would offer the possibility of overturning R. v. Morgentaler (although I'm not sure if that can even be done in Canada or if it's just some ridiculous thing they do in the states).
Also, I love how Bruinooge, for whatever reason, believes that a woman can decide to abort and kill her baby "the second before it's delivered". I thought we had some sort of restriction, where an abortion can only be performed during the first trimester. Apparently, I made that up.
R. v. Morgentaler won't be overturned. The government would have to use the notwithstanding clause to do that, and that's just not gonna happen. A move like that would be more controversy than this government can handle, for one thing. Plus, the notwithstanding clause is rarely used. It's also only good for 5 years, at which time it needs to be revisited. By that point, whatever party was stupid enough to use it will have been voted out.
Also, Morgentaler was just given an Order of Canada, one of our highest honours. To overturn the case that earned him such an honour? Hell no.
Also, in Canada, abortions aren't limited to the first trimester. There are no laws restricting abortion. This means that, if in her 9th month, a woman wants an abortion, there is no law telling her she can't. That's between her and her doctor, and that's exactly the way it should be.
Thanks for clearing that up, Jenna. And yes, come to think of it, with the current situation Harper would be completely off his rocker if he used the notwithstanding clause (which I'm sure I've heard of but really can't remember anything about). Not to mention, he would probably be demanded to resign or something.
And I didn't know that a woman could literally get an abortion anytime she wants in Canada. I guess that's something else I picked up from being exposed to American-centric everything. I wonder how many women actually choose to have an abortion that late in the pregnancy, though? Other than for health reasons that threaten her life/the baby's life.
Notwithstanding clause says, basically, that even though the courts have ruled that a law violated a Charter right, the government wants to keep the law. It was evoked in Quebec, back when they passed a law stating that signs had to be in French (violating freedom of speech). They used the clause, and then after it expired, decided to amend the law so that English could be included on signs in addition to French, so long as the French was bigger.
Obviously, decided to go ahead with a law, even after the courts deemed the law in violation of people's rights, is a controversial move.
Very few women chose to have a late term abortion: only 0.8% after 20 weeks (source). That's not even into the third trimester, yet. (No data for just third trimester abortions in Canada.) Those anti-choicers who whine and moan about how a woman can get an abortion up until the moment of birth can STFU, because it just doesn't happen without a good reason. I suspect the vast majority (maybe even all) of that 0.8% of post-20 week abortions are preformed because th woman's health is at risk, or because the fetus will not survive past birth/has already died, or something to that effect.
Yeah, I mean if a woman didn't want to have a baby she wouldn't hmm and haw about it for a few months. She generally knows whether she wants to have an abortion, have the baby but put it up for adoption, or have the baby.
And I definitely remember the notwithstanding clause now - my law teacher talked a lot about the French/English on signs in Quebec thing. And going just on that one instance of the notwithstanding clause being used and how much uproar and controversy it caused, I'd say that you and Fionnabhair are right, and they won't use it to make abortion illegal/put restrictions on it.
I love gaining peace of mind right before bed =)
Haha, I am Fionnabhair. Weird, actually, how it's showing me with one name for the post, and something else for my comments. Meh.
Yeah, weird... =S
That happens to me on this site, too. When I write my own entry, it uses my username "nicolechat" as a signature, but when I comment on anyone else's entry, it uses my first name "Nicole." It is very odd.
I think it's probably safe to say that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable, full term fetus. It goes against the hippocratic oath- to do no harm. I don't think you need a law prohibiting doctors from performing abortions on women carrying healthy (even retarded or mildly crippled) babies seconds from the point of natural delivery. They just wouldn't do it.
They're right. My kidney pulled in $53.60 more on ebay than that fetus I sold.
For the record, I think that banning the sale of kidneys is a horrible thing that causes many people to suffer unnecessarily.
It's my understanding that the main reason for banning the sale of kidneys is that we live in a public health care system and that would be considered the sale of health care. It's discriminitory from a class perspective. If I sell my kidney on Ebay to the highest bidder, I am ensuring the health and life of some rich person while condemning a less-fortunate person to death. That's why it's illegal. Serious transplants like that are supposed to be free in a public health care system like ours.
Which is also what pisses me off the most about this kidney analogy! Come on. Kidneys don't have "rights."
Actually I'm pretty certain that abortions in Quebec are covered, They are not available after the 3rd month however- then you have to go to the United States. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=e1708b6f-76f7-4595-b1a2-328807b72485&k=8421
As for reopening the debate I don't really want to because I'm afraid what will happen- my reaction to this post was Nooooooooooooo! we just got rid of c-484. But you're right, it's the democratic thing to do. The MP's are probably hiding because they know how controversial they are.
The Wikipedia article I cited says that abortions in Quebec are partially funded; the province covers the procedure if it's done in the first trimester. If abortion is not covered, or not available, after the first trimester, then it still represents an accessibility concern.
Looks like progress was made in the article you cited, but there's still work to be done. :)
I actually have no beef the idea that an attacker could get a heavier sentence if their attack caused a miscarriage, but NOT because the fetus itself has any claim to court protection. ONLY because of the further psychological damage potentially inflicted on the mother-to-be.
In other words, is the fetus a separate person that is a victim of murder? Of course not. But - assuming that the woman knew she was pregnant and wasn't planning on aborting - a miscarriage to a person who WANTED the baby is surely likely to cause psychological stress. So sure, a jury/judge should be able to consider it as evidence for the degree of damage the attack caused. But it's not a separate crime in any way. If a person threw a woman down the stairs, for example, with the INTENTION of inducing a miscarraige, shouldn't that intent count for something in court?
Again, though, I see no need for a separate section of the criminal code called "feticide" or anything. And if the debate on abortion is reopened, so be it. I say it's time for some pro-choice PSA's to hit the billboards, right across the street from churches. Anyone know of any good Canadian pro-choice organizations that need support? I'm ready to take on the misogynists.