Pro-lifers should not tolerate anti-choice label
By Barbara McAdorey

The following is an excerpt from a complaint written by Barbara McAdorey, former editor of LifeCanada News, to the Ottawa Citizen regarding the use of the term “anti-choice” by journalist Shelly Page to describe pro-life persons. This is a derogatory label which pro-lifers should always object to because it seriously undermines the important work we are trying to do by marginalizing us.  We are reprinting parts of Ms. McAdorey’s complaint since it explains why pro-lifers should not allow journalists or others to refer to us as “anti-choice”.  We should always ask the newspaper for an apology and explain why the use of this term is insulting. 

Ms. Page uses the offensive and derogatory term "anti-choice" to label people who believe that all children--born and unborn--have an inherent right to life. This label is not only inaccurate (pro-life people are not against choice, we are against abortion), but is also offensive because it perpetuates the stereotype that pro-lifers are unreasonable "fanatics" who want to impose their views on others. It is insulting and demeaning and has no place in a mainstream Canadian newspaper. I am not asking you or anybody at the Ottawa Citizen to agree with the pro-life point of view, but I am asking you to please treat all your readers--whatever their point of view on the controversial issue of abortion--with respect. This article displays a grotesque lack of respect for people whose views differ from those of Ms. Page.

If you do not understand why this term is so offensive, let me explain. Everyone in a free and democratic society believes that choice is a good thing. We all support the fundamental concept of choice. Prefixing the word with “anti” and attaching that label to us is meant to discredit and marginalize us by making it sound like we are against a good thing. But we are not against choice. We are against something else which we believe, for numerous reasons, is not a good thing— abortion.

If you are against a man’s right to choose to rape a woman, are you “anti-choice”? If you are against the right of a father to abuse his child, are you “anti-choice”? If you are against politicians lying to their constituents, or wife assault, or bank robbery, are you “anti-choice”? Of course not! There are many things people are against, but it is absurd to say this means they oppose the very notion of choice—it is the particular activities they oppose, and hence, particular choices. So choice is not the issue in the abortion debate; abortion is.

In fact, those of us who are pro-life are often far more supportive of freedom of choice than some who claim to be “pro-choice.” In a country like Canada where abortion is legal (although not a constitutional right) for the full nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever— social, economic, as a method of birth control, etc.—those of us who subscribe to a pro-life ethic certainly do believe a woman should have a choice—a real choice. Her choice to have an abortion should be completely free from any coercion by a boyfriend, a parent, a counselor, a government, or anyone else. And for a choice to be completely free, it must be completely informed. She should be given all the information about potential health risks, both physically and psychologically; she should be fully informed about prenatal development; she should be told about all the resources in the community which can offer her support to carry her baby to term and to either keep the child or place the child for adoption. If any of this information is withheld from her or made difficult for her to access, if social supports are not in place to help her cope with the pregnancy, if she feels alone, unloved, unsupported, then she may feel forced to “choose” abortion. That is not choice. Freedom to choose can only exist within the context of knowledge and truth and viable options.

And what about the choice not to be involved with abortion? Is forcing tax-payers to pay for a medically unnecessary procedure they ethically oppose "pro-choice"? Is it "pro-choice" to bully a major financial institution, specifically BMO, into dumping a long-time, legitimate customer--specifically, LifeCanada--simply because that customer is a pro-life organization? Is threatening a medical student with failure if she will not refer a patient for an abortion “pro-choice”? Is urging women to lodge complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons if their doctors will not refer them for abortions “pro-choice?” Those abortion-rights supporters who would deny others the choice to refuse to be complicit in abortions— who believe they have the right to force others to act against their consciences— call themselves “pro-choice.” Not only is this an abuse of the English language, it is an abuse of the very notion of freedom of choice. And it is an attack on the Charter Right to freedom of conscience and contrary to the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics which supports a doctor’s right to refuse, for reasons of conscience, to refer a patient for abortion. It is evident that people who want to control others in this fashion are not really interested in choice at all.

Which brings me back to my original point: the issue being debated is not choice, it is the right to abortion (which does not even exist in Canada. ) There are those of us who do not support a right to abortion (because we believe abortion has tragic consequences for children, women, men and society); and there are those who support it. Calling those who oppose it “anti-choice”—besides being malicious—is completely inappropriate because it fails to describe what we oppose. And calling those who support it “pro-choice” is euphemistic because it sugar-coats the truth about what these people support. While some abortion-rights advocates may be truly pro-choice (in that they support both a woman's right to be fully informed and free from pressure to abort as well as an abortion opponent's right to freedom of conscience and the right to be treated equally, whether by financial institutions or any other institution in this country), many are not. And those who are not are the ones slinging the 'anti-choice' invective at those--like myself--they seek to oppress.

The “anti-choice” label has no place in the lexicon of mainstream journalism. It behooves the Ottawa Citizen to choose its words carefully so that it does not become party to the spread of bigotry.