As we all enter this busy, but most beautiful season, I was asked a question to reflect upon. The question was placed in the context, that the younger pro-lifers and newer pro-life groups led by many great pro-life young people are questioning whether the pro-life movement should have opposed Bill C-43 An Act respecting Abortion, in 1990. Many, it seems blame those of us who did oppose it for the tragic state of protection of human life in Canada today.  I have listed below some of the points that we had to base our correct decision to oppose Bill C- 43 An Act Respecting Abortion, upon. I emphasize at the beginning, that I believe this kind of blame game to be fruitless and by addressing the question I do not wish to get into any large discussion because it will not assist us going forward.

We have politicians who deny the fact that human life begins at fertilization and sit complacently by, as our Canadian children in the womb are excluded from the protections afforded every other Canadian, especially the right to life, which allows the killing of these most vulnerable little ones to the tune of 100,000 per year! I am thinking Herod would be right at home in Canada, he attacked the smallest children as well from fear and to keep power in his grasp.

Women too, have also been thrown under the abortion bus. We now know that 60% of Canadian women who underwent abortion, did so forced or coerced, by boyfriends, family, peers or circumstances, against their own values and will. We have the abortion pill being handed out like candy and many women suffering the agony of chemical abortion alone. Our vulnerable and frail elderly are being provided with euthanasia rather than appropriate health care and we have just learnt that breaches of the legal guidelines are not being reported as they should, 428 in Ontario alone of one sort or another.

In this, one of the darkest moral times in this country, we as a pro-life movement must stand side by side facing forward, seeing clearly what needs to be done and doing it. Prolife physicians must challenge the abortion affirming stances of their colleges and medical bodies. Prolife midwives must stop the gallop of their provincial and national associations to embrace induced abortion as “care”. Prolife pharmacists, must question the involvement of their profession in induced abortion and euthanasia. Pro-life nurses, must challenge the increasing involvement of nurse practitioners in both abortion and euthanasia. Prolife teachers must challenge the educational system especially in the area of fetal development. Prolife politicians must somehow obtain the courage to challenge the antiquated section 223 of our Criminal Code. We do not need an abortion law or some of these side issues, we must hit this death dealing society straight on and demand protection for every human life. I have spent 35 years as director of Alliance for Life Ontario and no politician has ever told me that now is the right time to tackle this, not one!  In fact, the reversal has been more the truth – this is not the right time they have said, more times than I can count. Well, I believe the time is now, the science is on our side, we just need to find the commitment.

 Why we wanted Bill C-43 defeated!!!

  • First introduced on November 3rd, 1989 by the Mulroney government, Bill C-43 passed third reading in 1990 and moved to the Senate where it failed in a tie vote
  • “inducing an abortion does not include using a drug, device or other means on a female person that is likely to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum” (C-43, 1990, p. 2).    Totally denied the existence of the embryonic child from fertilization, offered no protection of life for the pre-born, excluded “prevention of implantation” being defined as an abortion and paving the way for In Vitro fertilization, the abortion pill, Morning after pill and IUD being allowed.
  • Only one doctor would be needed to approve the abortion and that could be the abortionist, a woman could doctor shop until she found one that said yes.
  • There was no limit on abortions, but at the beginning, it appeared it would have an “on demand section” up until 12, 16 or 24 weeks (gestational approach) and then possibly some limitations after this cut off, but abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy
  • Abortions could be performed by people,(nurses, technicians, assistants?) ”under the direction” of a doctor, not just by the physican, thus expanding abortion providers. The Bill said nothing about the doctor “supervising” the abortion which could have led to a doctor directing a while facilities on non-doctors to procure abortions after he/she had been of the opinion that it was necessary because of the “vaguest” of health reasons.
  • Expanded the sites where abortion could be performed from hospitals – to other facilities.
  • Abortions could be performed for the most vague reasons as long as the physician was “of the opinion” that the pregnacy was”likely to threaten the mother’s health.” The term included “psychological or mental health”
  • Enforcing this law would have been almost impossible – how do you question a physicians opinion or prove wrongdoing? Any reason a woman gave might be defined as a good reason in the opinion of a physician.
  • There was no minimum age for procuring abortion nor parental notification of parents necessary
  • The Supreme Court had agreed that society has an interst in considering the “fetus” at some point, but this Bill absolutely ignored the child in the womb, leading many of us to believe it would be unconstitutional and open for challenge. It was unacceptable because it failed to protect the lives of pre-born children and contained loopholes which accommodated “abortion on demand”
  • Many folks believed that Bill-43 becoming law, although flawed, would be better than no law, but many of us thought that passage of this bill would allow MPs and government to wipe their hands of considering abortion in the future and any chance that a principled and better law, respecting the life of the child in the womb, being brought forward – would be lost.
  • There were studies undertaken around the world that showed very little difference in abortion numbers with or without a law on abortion and we would not compromise our pro-life principle. In research that I conducted comparing France, Germany, Spain with Canada a few years ago, the same was still true even though these countries have  gestational laws and Canada has none!
  • “Another point the Justice Minister emphasized was that doctors need not fear prosecution for performing abortions. “It is facile and misleading”, she declared, “to say that Bill C-43 is making criminals out of women and doctors.” As long as a doctor honestly forms an opinion that continuation of the pregnancy could endanger a woman’s physical, mental or psychological health, he need not worry about the possibility of prosecution; there is no mechanism for looking behind that opinion. https://theinterim.com/politics/kim-campbell-bill-c-43-is-woman%E2%80%99s-entitlement/
  • A woman’s right to access induced abortion would have been enshrined in law had bill C-43 passed.
  • The Justice Minister expounded that rape, incest, eugenics and socio-economic welfare could be included under the term “health”.
  • The abortion pill and home abortion kits could have been prescribed anytime by the doctor.

For new pro-lifers to believe that the passage of Bill C-43 would have been a plus for the pre-born child and the pro-life movement in Canada is naïve. We would have been in a worse position than we are now because, now at least, we can still demand protection for the preborn. What we needed then and still need now is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on protection of human life from fertilization. We should not be working toward a writing an abortion law unless it criminalizes every single abortion and we certainly should not be looking at others to blame. We need to have the courage to demand what we really want and demand that the pro-life MPs work, toward protection of pre-born human beings, not a compromise abortion law which demands we abandon our pro-life principle. I have been in the movement long enough to hear this all before. We did the right thing on Bill C-43 even though some church leadership where prepared to compromise the lives of our tiniest little ones. As a pro-life movement our job is to witness to the dignity of every human life in every situation and at every turn.