Should our First Priority Really be Abortion Legislation?
By Betty Smith

Shocked at the question?  That, however, is precisely what comes to my mind as we mark 19 years since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down an already weakened abortion law.   What is often referred to as the Morgentaler decision left Canada without a law restricting abortion, but it did not grant women a “right” to abortion.  In fact, the Court suggested that it was up to Parliament to come up with another way to protect the unborn child.
           
Most pro-lifers are very familiar with the sequence of events that led up to this Supreme Court decision.  However, it is good sometimes to go back in history, as it is then that we discover new insights.  It is particularly helpful to those who have recently joined this cause for life, in order to gain more of an understanding of how we arrived at where we are today.  For the sake of brevity and simplicity, let’s go back to the law that was struck down.
           
As we know, the 1988 ruling addressed an already amended abortion law.  Prior to 1969 abortion was illegal.  However, as a consequence of aggressive lobbying, a co-operative media, some educators, politicians, clergy, lawyers and medical practitioners, the abortion advocates were successful in having the legislation weakened to permit abortion, provided specified requirements were met. 

Briefly, it ruled that the request for abortion be approved by a therapeutic abortion committee and after determining that it was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, the abortion had to be performed by a physician in an accredited or approved hospital.  As a result, the number of abortions quickly began to skyrocket, mainly due to very loose interpretations of the “therapeutic” nature of the request.
           
Because the ultimate goal of the abortion advocates was “abortion on demand”, aggressive law breaking began and various strategies were employed, once again with the vigorous co-operation of the same influential voices as mentioned earlier.  These efforts resulted in the now infamous Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court on January 28, 1988.  That decision concluded that the requirements stipulated in the 1969 legislation violated a woman’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person”, as outlined in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The reasons cited were the lack of equal access to therapeutic abortion committees and co-operative hospitals across the country.  It was also determined that delays caused by the system could endanger the woman whose life or health was perceived to be threatened by the pregnancy.  In addition, there was concern about the lack of any clear legal standard to be applied to the definition of “health”.  Subsequently, this decision opened the floodgates to “abortion on demand”.
           
To date, this 1988 ruling, combined with the already weakened law of 1969, has been responsible for the legal killing of close to 3 million babies awaiting birth in Canada.
           
All this information has been presented by me in a very much abbreviated fashion.  I encourage readers, who are not familiar with all the details, to get in touch with your local pro-life group, Life Canada, or Campaign Life for more complete insight into this dark chapter of Canadian history.
           
How did we ever get to this point where the killing of an unborn child is not considered an act of homicide?  Simply, because the legal definition of the child in the womb has been based on scientific/medical knowledge of the Dark Ages.  It has never been adapted to reflect modern day discoveries about the child awaiting birth.  Over the years various Criminal Code Statutes have defined when a “child becomes a human being”.  Today, this definition is still referred to – “A child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not: (a) It has breathed.  (b) It has independent circulation.  (c) The navel string is severed.  Even today, this definition is the basis of debate to which abortion advocates continue to cling.
           
However, we are now living in the 21st Century – the age of rapidly advancing scientific knowledge and technological skills.  Technology now brings us incredible 4 dimensional images of the child in the womb.  Almost daily, the scientific and medical communities are presented with startling new discoveries about human life at its earliest stages.  Lifesaving surgery is now performed on babies before birth.  Interestingly, the previous definition of when a child becomes a human being would acknowledge these children as human beings during the period they are being operated on outside their mother’s body, but when they are replaced to continue their development they would lose their status until they emerge once again at their birth.  In the light of such evidence, only the ignorant and dishonest can continue to deny that the child awaiting birth is a human being worthy of protection.
           
A society which determines that any one of us must meet certain criteria at any time in our existence, in order to qualify as a human being, is heading down a very dangerous road indeed.  Just look what happened to the 3 million babies awaiting birth since 1969!
           
In spite of all that has transpired, there is much cause for optimism.  We are witnessing a growing number of incredibly confident and courageous young people speaking out in defense of life.  Today’s media is reflecting increased honesty and objectivity when reporting on the abortion debate.  And I feel confident that, with the scientific and technological information available, today’s legislators will soon have to recognize the need for more credible legislation.
           
At this time, the following quote, published in the 1970 issue of California Medicine, seems appropriate.
           
“….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.  It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.”

When handing down the Morgentaler decision on January 28, 1988, the judges were undoubtedly well aware of how effectively the above mentioned “semantic gymnastics” had conditioned public support and influenced their own thinking.  Although the ruling appeared to be a grossly exaggerated interpretation of the protection of a woman’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person”, remember they did emphasize that their decision did not give women a “right” to abortion.  And they went on further to suggest that it was up to Parliament to come up with an acceptable law to protect human lives before birth.
           
Parliament represents us.  Shouldn’t we ask them to stop ducking the challenge put forth to them 19 years ago?    Simply recognizing the child in the womb as a “human being” would be a good start!  Maybe that should be our first priority.

Betty Smith was past executive director of Action Life Ottawa. She has been active in pro-life work for many years.